Asymmetric Hearing Loss in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients: Results and Recommendations From a Multisite Prospective Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: A multisite clinical trial was conducted to obtain cochlear implant (CI) efficacy data in adults with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL) and establish an evidence-based framework for clinical decision-making regarding CI candidacy, counseling, and assessment tools. Study hypotheses were threefold: (1) 6-month postimplant performance in the poor ear (PE) with a CI will be significantly better than preimplant performance with a hearing aid (HA), (2) 6-month postimplant performance with a CI and HA (bimodal) will be significantly better than preimplant performance with bilateral HAs (Bil HAs), and (3) 6-month postimplant bimodal performance will be significantly better than aided, better ear (BE) performance. DESIGN: Forty adults with AHL from four, metropolitan CI centers participated. Hearing criteria for the ear to be implanted included (1) pure-tone average (PTA, 0.5, 1, 2 kHz) of >70 dB HL, (2) aided, monosyllabic word score of ≤30%, (3) duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss of ≥6 months, and (4) onset of hearing loss ≥6 years of age. Hearing criteria for the BE included (1) PTA (0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz) of 40 to 70 dB HL, (2) currently using a HA, (3) aided, word score of >40%, and (4) stable hearing for the previous 1-year period. Speech perception and localization measures, in quiet and in noise, were administered preimplant and at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months postimplant. Preimplant testing was performed in three listening conditions, PE HA, BE HA, and Bil HAs. Postimplant testing was performed in three conditions, CI, BE HA, and bimodal. Outcome factors included age at implantation and length of deafness (LOD) in the PE. RESULTS: A hierarchical nonlinear analysis predicted significant improvement in the PE by 3 months postimplant versus preimplant for audibility and speech perception with a plateau in performance at approximately 6 months. The model predicted significant improvement in postimplant, bimodal outcomes versus preimplant outcomes (Bil HAs) for all speech perception measures by 3 months. Both age and LOD were predicted to moderate some CI and bimodal outcomes. In contrast with speech perception, localization in quiet and noise was not predicted to improve by 6 months when comparing Bil HAs (preimplant) to bimodal (postimplant) outcomes. However, when participants' preimplant everyday listening condition (BE HA or Bil HAs) was compared with bimodal performance, the model predicted significant improvement by 3 months for localization in quiet and noise. Lastly, BE HA results were stable over time; a generalized linear model analysis revealed bimodal performance was significantly better than performance with a BE HA at all postimplant intervals for most speech perception measures and localization. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed significant CI and bimodal benefit for AHL participants by 3-months postimplant, with a plateau in CI and bimodal performance at approximately 6-months postimplant. Results can be used to inform AHL CI candidates and to monitor postimplant performance. On the basis of this and other AHL research, clinicians should consider a CI for individuals with AHL if the PE has a PTA (0.5, 1, 2 kHz) >70 dB HL and a Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant word score ≤40%. LOD >10 years should not be a contraindication.

Evaluation of the American English Matrix Test with Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, the variety of speech recognition tests used to evaluate cochlear implant (CI) recipients makes it difficult to compare results, especially across languages. The Matrix Test limits contextual cues and is available in multiple languages, including American English. The current study investigated test format and noise type for the American English Matrix Test (AMT) and compared results to AzBio sentence scores in adult CI recipients. DESIGN: Fifteen experienced CI recipients were administered the AMT in fixed- and adaptive-level formats and AzBio sentences in a fixed-level format. Testing in noise used the AMT-specific noise and 4-talker babble. RESULTS: Ceiling effects were present for all AMT fixed-level conditions and AzBio sentences in quiet. Group mean AzBio scores were poorer than AMT scores. Noise type affected performance regardless of format; 4-talker babble was more challenging. CONCLUSIONS: The limited number of word choices in each category likely aided listeners performance for the AMT compared to AzBio sentences. The use of the AMT in the designed adaptive-level format would allow effective evaluation and comparison of CI performance internationally. A test battery with the AMT may also benefit from including AzBio sentences in 4-talker babble to reflect performance during listening challenges.

Cortical Regions Activated by Spectrally Degraded Speech in Adults With Single Sided Deafness or Bilateral Normal Hearing.

Those with profound sensorineural hearing loss from single sided deafness (SSD) generally experience greater cognitive effort and fatigue in adverse sound environments. We studied cases with right ear, SSD compared to normal hearing (NH) individuals. SSD cases were significantly less correct in naming last words in spectrally degraded 8- and 16-band vocoded sentences, despite high semantic predictability. Group differences were not significant for less intelligible 4-band sentences, irrespective of predictability. SSD also had diminished BOLD percent signal changes to these same sentences in left hemisphere (LH) cortical regions of early auditory, association auditory, inferior frontal, premotor, inferior parietal, dorsolateral prefrontal, posterior cingulate, temporal-parietal-occipital junction, and posterior opercular. Cortical regions with lower amplitude responses in SSD than NH were mostly components of a LH language network, previously noted as concerned with speech recognition. Recorded BOLD signal magnitudes were averages from all vertices within predefined parcels from these cortex regions. Parcels from different regions in SSD showed significantly larger signal magnitudes to sentences of greater intelligibility (e.g., 8- or 16- vs. 4-band) in all except early auditory and posterior cingulate cortex. Significantly lower response magnitudes occurred in SSD than NH in regions prior studies found responsible for phonetics and phonology of speech, cognitive extraction of meaning, controlled retrieval of word meaning, and semantics. The findings suggested reduced activation of a LH fronto-temporo-parietal network in SSD contributed to difficulty processing speech for word meaning and sentence semantics. Effortful listening experienced by SSD might reflect diminished activation to degraded speech in the affected LH language network parcels. SSD showed no compensatory activity in matched right hemisphere parcels.

Front- and rear-facing horizontal sound localization results in adults with unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing.

Binaural hearing allows listeners to take advantage of auditory cues that are necessary for sound localization. Patients with asymmetric or unilateral hearing loss receive degraded or absent binaural cues and often demonstrate decreased sound localization in the horizontal plane. Given the importance of sound localization for everyday function, there is a need for clinically feasible methods to evaluate localization, particularly as validation of intervention for patients with unilateral hearing loss. The present study compared sound localization results obtained for front-facing and rear-facing soundfield systems and for a rear-facing head related transfer function (HRTF) system in two hearing groups, listeners with normal hearing and those with unilateral hearing loss. Results between the three systems were highly correlated and repeatable. Neither age nor a pure-tone average of 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 kHz correlated with localization performance among normal hearing participants. Among the UHL group, age and onset of severe to profound hearing loss were positively correlated with localization results; length of deafness was negatively correlated. Behavioral chance performance was established for localization with rear-facing HRTF and rear-facing soundfield test systems; group mean results for unilateral hearing loss participants were significantly better than chance. Continued work is needed in developing clinically feasible evaluation methods for patients with asymmetric or unilateral hearing loss, particularly as the effects of treatment options are assessed.

Evaluation of a New Algorithm to Optimize Audibility in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

OBJECTIVES: A positive relation between audibility and speech understanding has been established for cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Sound field thresholds of 20 dB HL across the frequency range provide CI users the opportunity to understand soft and very soft speech. However, programming the sound processor to attain good audibility can be time-consuming and difficult for some patients. To address these issues, Advanced Bionics (AB) developed the SoftVoice algorithm designed to remove system noise and thereby improve audibility of soft speech. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SoftVoice in optimizing AB CI recipients' soft-speech perception. DESIGN: Two studies were conducted. Study 1 had two phases, 1A and 1B. Sixteen adult, AB CI recipients participated in Study 1A. Acute testing was performed in the unilateral CI condition using a Harmony processor programmed with participants' everyday-use program (Everyday) and that same program but with SoftVoice implemented. Speech recognition measures were administered at several presentation levels in quiet (35 to 60 dB SPL) and in noise (60 dB SPL). In Study 1B, 10 of the participants compared Everyday and SoftVoice at home to obtain feedback regarding the use of SoftVoice in various environments. During Study 2, soft-speech perception was acutely measured with Everyday and SoftVoice for 10 participants using the Naida CI Q70 processor. Results with the Harmony (Study 1A) and Naida processors were compared. Additionally, Study 2 evaluated programming options for setting electrode threshold levels (T-levels or Ts) to improve the usability of SoftVoice in daily life. RESULTS: Study 1A showed significantly higher scores with SoftVoice than Everyday at soft presentation levels (35, 40, 45, and 50 dB SPL) and no significant differences between programs at a conversational level (60 dB SPL) in quiet or in noise. After take-home experience with SoftVoice and Everyday (Study 1B), 5 of 10 participants reported preferring SoftVoice over Everyday; however, 6 reported bothersome environmental sound when listening with SoftVoice at home. Results of Study 2 indicated similar soft-speech perception between Harmony and Naida processors. Additionally, implementing SoftVoice with Ts at the manufacturer's default setting of 10% of Ms reduced reports of bothersome environmental sound during take-home experience; however, soft-speech perception was best with SoftVoice when Ts were behaviorally set above 10% of Ms. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that SoftVoice may be a potential tool for optimizing AB users' audibility and, in turn, soft-speech perception. To achieve optimal performance at soft levels and comfortable use in daily environments, setting Ts must be considered with SoftVoice. Future research should examine program parameters that may benefit soft-speech perception when used in combination with SoftVoice (e.g., increased input dynamic range).

Results in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients With Varied Asymmetric Hearing: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Speech Recognition, Localization, and Participant Report.

OBJECTIVES: Asymmetric hearing with severe to profound hearing loss (SPHL) in one ear and better hearing in the other requires increased listening effort and is detrimental for understanding speech in noise and sound localization. Although a cochlear implant (CI) is the only treatment that can restore hearing to an ear with SPHL, current candidacy criteria often disallows this option for patients with asymmetric hearing. The present study aimed to evaluate longitudinal performance outcomes in a relatively large group of adults with asymmetric hearing who received a CI in the poor ear. DESIGN: Forty-seven adults with postlingual hearing loss participated. Test materials included objective and subjective measures meant to elucidate communication challenges encountered by those with asymmetric hearing. Test intervals included preimplant and 6 and 12 months postimplant. Preimplant testing was completed in participants' everyday listening condition: bilateral hearing aids (HAs) n = 9, better ear HA n = 29, and no HA n = 9; postimplant, each ear was tested separately and in the bimodal condition. RESULTS: Group mean longitudinal results in the bimodal condition postimplant compared with the preimplant everyday listening condition indicated significantly improved sentence scores at soft levels and in noise, improved localization, and higher ratings of communication function by 6 months postimplant. Group mean, 6-month postimplant results were significantly better in the bimodal condition compared with either ear alone. Audibility and speech recognition for the poor ear alone improved significantly with a CI compared with preimplant. Most participants had clinically meaningful benefit on most measures. Contributory factors reported for traditional CI candidates also impacted results for this population. In general, older participants had poorer bimodal speech recognition in noise and localization abilities than younger participants. Participants with early SPHL onset had better bimodal localization than those with later SPHL onset, and participants with longer SPHL duration had poorer CI alone speech understanding in noise but not in quiet. Better ear pure-tone average (PTA) correlated with all speech recognition measures in the bimodal condition. To understand the impact of better ear hearing on bimodal performance, participants were grouped by better ear PTA: group 1 PTA ≤40 dB HL (n = 19), group 2 PTA = 41 to 55 dB HL (n = 14), and group 3 PTA = 56 to 70 dB HL (n = 14). All groups showed bimodal benefit on speech recognition measures in quiet and in noise; however, only group 3 obtained benefit when noise was toward the CI ear. All groups showed improved localization and ratings of perceived communication. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a CI for the poor ear was an effective treatment for this population. Improved audibility and speech recognition were evident by 6 months postimplant. Improvements in sound localization and self-reports of communication benefit were significant and not related to better ear hearing. Participants with more hearing in the better ear (group 1) showed less bimodal benefit but greater bimodal performance for speech recognition than groups 2 and 3. Test batteries for this population should include quality of life measures, sound localization, and adaptive speech recognition measures with spatially separated noise to capture the hearing loss deficits and treatment benefits reported by this patient population.

Unilateral Hearing Loss: Understanding Speech Recognition and Localization Variability-Implications for Cochlear Implant Candidacy.

OBJECTIVES: At a minimum, unilateral hearing loss (UHL) impairs sound localization ability and understanding speech in noisy environments, particularly if the loss is severe to profound. Accompanying the numerous negative consequences of UHL is considerable unexplained individual variability in the magnitude of its effects. Identification of covariables that affect outcome and contribute to variability in UHLs could augment counseling, treatment options, and rehabilitation. Cochlear implantation as a treatment for UHL is on the rise yet little is known about factors that could impact performance or whether there is a group at risk for poor cochlear implant outcomes when hearing is near-normal in one ear. The overall goal of our research is to investigate the range and source of variability in speech recognition in noise and localization among individuals with severe to profound UHL and thereby help determine factors relevant to decisions regarding cochlear implantation in this population. DESIGN: The present study evaluated adults with severe to profound UHL and adults with bilateral normal hearing. Measures included adaptive sentence understanding in diffuse restaurant noise, localization, roving-source speech recognition (words from 1 of 15 speakers in a 140° arc), and an adaptive speech-reception threshold psychoacoustic task with varied noise types and noise-source locations. There were three age-sex-matched groups: UHL (severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear), normal hearing listening bilaterally, and normal hearing listening unilaterally. RESULTS: Although the normal-hearing-bilateral group scored significantly better and had less performance variability than UHLs on all measures, some UHL participants scored within the range of the normal-hearing-bilateral group on all measures. The normal-hearing participants listening unilaterally had better monosyllabic word understanding than UHLs for words presented on the blocked/deaf side but not the open/hearing side. In contrast, UHLs localized better than the normal-hearing unilateral listeners for stimuli on the open/hearing side but not the blocked/deaf side. This suggests that UHLs had learned strategies for improved localization on the side of the intact ear. The UHL and unilateral normal-hearing participant groups were not significantly different for speech in noise measures. UHL participants with childhood rather than recent hearing loss onset localized significantly better; however, these two groups did not differ for speech recognition in noise. Age at onset in UHL adults appears to affect localization ability differently than understanding speech in noise. Hearing thresholds were significantly correlated with speech recognition for UHL participants but not the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Auditory abilities of UHLs varied widely and could be explained only in part by hearing threshold levels. Age at onset and length of hearing loss influenced performance on some, but not all measures. Results support the need for a revised and diverse set of clinical measures, including sound localization, understanding speech in varied environments, and careful consideration of functional abilities as individuals with severe to profound UHL are being considered potential cochlear implant candidates.

A Longitudinal Study in Children With Sequential Bilateral Cochlear Implants: Time Course for the Second Implanted Ear and Bilateral Performance.

Purpose: Whether, and if so when, a second-ear cochlear implant should be provided to older, unilaterally implanted children is an ongoing clinical question. This study evaluated rate of speech recognition progress for the second implanted ear and with bilateral cochlear implants in older sequentially implanted children and evaluated localization abilities. Method: A prospective longitudinal study included 24 bilaterally implanted children (mean ear surgeries at 5.11 and 14.25 years). Test intervals were every 3-6 months through 24 months postbilateral. Test conditions were each ear and bilaterally for speech recognition and localization. Results: Overall, the rate of progress for the second implanted ear was gradual. Improvements in quiet continued through the second year of bilateral use. Improvements in noise were more modest and leveled off during the second year. On all measures, results from the second ear were poorer than the first. Bilateral scores were better than either ear alone for all measures except sentences in quiet and localization. Conclusions: Older sequentially implanted children with several years between surgeries may obtain speech understanding in the second implanted ear; however, performance may be limited and rate of progress gradual. Continued contralateral ear hearing aid use and reduced time between surgeries may enhance outcomes.

Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

OBJECTIVE: To identify primary biographic and audiologic factors contributing to cochlear implant (CI) performance variability in quiet and noise by controlling electrode array type and electrode position within the cochlea. BACKGROUND: Although CI outcomes have improved over time, considerable outcome variability still exists. Biographic, audiologic, and device-related factors have been shown to influence performance. Examining CI recipients with consistent array type and electrode position may allow focused investigation into outcome variability resulting from biographic and audiologic factors. METHODS: Thirty-nine adults (40 ears) implanted for at least 6 months with a perimodiolar electrode array known (via computed tomography [CT] imaging) to be in scala tympani participated. Test materials, administered CI only, included monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet and noise, and spectral ripple discrimination. RESULTS: In quiet, scores were high with mean word and sentence scores of 76 and 87%, respectively; however, sentence scores decreased by an average of 35 percentage points when noise was added. A principal components (PC) analysis of biographic and audiologic factors found three distinct factors, PC1 Age, PC2 Duration, and PC3 Pre-op Hearing. PC1 Age was the only factor that correlated, albeit modestly, with speech recognition in quiet and noise. Spectral ripple discrimination strongly correlated with speech measures. CONCLUSION: For these recipients with consistent electrode position, PC1 Age was related to speech recognition performance. Consistent electrode position may have contributed to high speech understanding in quiet. Inter-subject variability in noise may have been influenced by auditory/cognitive processing, known to decline with age, and mechanisms that underlie spectral resolution ability.

Quantification of speech-in-noise and sound localisation abilities in children with unilateral hearing loss and comparison to normal hearing peers.

The study objective was to quantify abilities of children with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) on measures that address known deficits for this population, i.e. speech understanding in quiet and noise, and sound localisation. Noise conditions varied by noise type and source location. Parent reports of real-world abilities were also obtained. Performance was compared to gender- and age-matched normal hearing (NH) peers. UHL performance was poorer and more varied compared to NH peers. Among the findings, age correlated with localisation ability for UHL but not NH participants. Low-frequency hearing in the better ear of UHL children was associated with performance in noise; however, there was no relation for NH children. Considerable variability was evident in the outcomes of children with UHL and needs to be understood as future treatment options are considered.

Localization training results in individuals with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

Adults with unilateral hearing loss often demonstrate decreased sound localization ability and report that situations requiring spatial hearing are especially challenging. Few studies have evaluated localization abilities combined with training in this population. The present pilot study examined whether localization of two sound types would improve after training, and explored the relation between localization ability or training benefit and demographic factors. Eleven participants with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss attended five training sessions; localization cues gradually decreased across sessions. Localization ability was assessed pre- and post-training. Assessment stimuli were monosyllabic words and spectral and temporal random spectrogram sounds. Root mean square errors for each participant and stimulus type were used in group and correlation analyses; individual data were examined with ordinary least squares regression. Mean pre-to post-training test results were significantly different for all stimulus types. Among the participants, eight significantly improved following training on at least one localization measure, whereas three did not. Participants with the poorest localization ability improved the most and likewise, those with the best pre-training ability showed the least training benefit. Correlation results suggested that test age, age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss and better ear high frequency audibility may contribute to localization ability. Results support the need for continued investigation of localization training efficacy and consideration of localization training within rehabilitation protocols for individuals with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss.

A longitudinal study in adults with sequential bilateral cochlear implants: time course for individual ear and bilateral performance.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of progress in the 2nd implanted ear as it relates to the 1st implanted ear and to bilateral performance in adult sequential cochlear implant recipients. In addition, this study aimed to identify factors that contribute to patient outcomes. METHOD: The authors performed a prospective longitudinal study in 21 adults who received bilateral sequential cochlear implants. Testing occurred at 6 intervals: prebilateral through 12 months postbilateral implantation. Measures evaluated speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, and perceived benefit. RESULTS: Second ear performance was similar to 1st ear performance by 6 months postbilateral implantation. Bilateral performance was generally superior to either ear alone; however, participants with shorter 2nd ear length of deafness (<20 years) had more rapid early improvement and better overall outcomes than those with longer 2nd ear length of deafness (>30 years). All participants reported bilateral benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Adult cochlear implant recipients demonstrated benefit from 2nd ear implantation for speech recognition, localization, and perceived communication function. Because performance outcomes were related to length of deafness, shorter time between surgeries may be warranted to reduce negative length-of-deafness effects. Future study may clarify the impact of other variables, such as preimplant hearing aid use, particularly for individuals with longer periods of deafness.

Effects of unilateral input and mode of hearing in the better ear: self-reported performance using the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of hearing mode (normal hearing, cochlear implant, or hearing aid) on everyday communication among adult unilateral listeners using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). Individuals with one good, naturally hearing ear were expected to have higher overall ratings than unilateral listeners dependent on a cochlear implant or hearing aid. The authors anticipated that listening environments reliant on binaural processing for successful communication would be rated most disabling by all unilateral listeners. Regardless of hearing mode, all hearing-impaired participants were expected to have lower ratings than individuals with normal hearing bilaterally. A secondary objective was to compare post-treatment SSQ results of participants who subsequently obtained a cochlear implant for the poorer hearing ear with those of participants with a single normal-hearing ear. DESIGN: Participants were 87 adults recruited as part of ongoing research investigating asymmetric hearing effects. Sixty-six participants were unilateral listeners who had one unaided/nonimplanted severe to profound hearing-loss ear and were grouped based on hearing mode of the better ear: 30 had one normal-hearing ear (i.e., unilateral hearing-loss participants); 20 had a unilateral cochlear implant; and 16 had a unilateral hearing aid. Data were also collected from 21 normal-hearing individuals, as well as a subset of participants who subsequently received a cochlear implant in the poorer ear and thus became bilateral listeners. Data analysis was completed at the domain and subscale levels. RESULTS: A significant mode-of-hearing group effect for the hearing-impaired participants (i.e., with unilateral hearing loss, unilateral cochlear implant, or unilateral hearing aid) was identified for two domains (Speech and Qualities) and six subscales (Speech in Quiet, Speech in Noise, Speech in Speech Contexts, Multiple Speech Stream Processing and Switching, Identification of Sound and Objects, and Sound Quality and Naturalness). There was no significant mode-of-hearing group effect for the Spatial domain or the other four subscales (Localization, Distance and Movement, Segregation of Sounds, and Listening Effort). Follow-up analysis indicated the unilateral normal-hearing ear group had significantly higher ratings than the unilateral cochlear implant or hearing aid groups for the Speech domain and four of the ten subscales; neither the cochlear implant nor hearing aid group had subscale ratings significantly higher than each other or the unilateral hearing loss group. Audibility and sound quality imparted by hearing mode were identified as factors related to subjective listening experience. After cochlear implantation to restore bilateral hearing, SSQ ratings for bilateral cochlear implant or cochlear implant plus hearing aid participants were significantly higher than those of the unilateral hearing-loss group for Speech in Quiet, Speech in Noise, Localization, Distance and Movement, Listening Effort, and the Spatial domain. Hearing-impaired individuals had significantly poorer ratings in all areas compared with those with bilateral normal hearing. CONCLUSIONS: Adults reliant on a single ear, irrespective of better ear hearing mode, including those with one normal hearing ear, are at a disadvantage in all aspects of everyday listening and communication. Audibility and hearing mode were shown to differentially contribute to listening experience.

Postlingual adult performance in noise with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice Low, Medium, and High.

OBJECTIVES: The study's objectives were to evaluate speech recognition in multiple listening conditions using several noise types with HiRes 120 and ClearVoice (Low, Medium, High) and to determine which ClearVoice program was most beneficial for everyday use. METHODS: Fifteen postlingual adults attended four sessions; speech recognition was assessed at sessions 1 and 3 with HiRes 120 and at sessions 2 and 4 with all ClearVoice programs. Test measures included sentences presented in restaurant noise (R-SPACE), in speech-spectrum noise, in four- and eight-talker babble, and connected discourse presented in 12-talker babble. Participants completed a questionnaire comparing ClearVoice programs. RESULTS: Significant group differences in performance between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were present only in the R-SPACE; performance was better with ClearVoice High than HiRes 120. Among ClearVoice programs, no significant group differences were present for any measure. Individual results revealed most participants performed better in the R-SPACE with ClearVoice than HiRes 120. For other measures, significant individual differences between HiRes 120 and ClearVoice were not prevalent. Individual results among ClearVoice programs differed and overall preferences varied. Questionnaire data indicated increased understanding with High and Medium in certain environments. DISCUSSION: R-SPACE and questionnaire results indicated an advantage for ClearVoice High and Medium. Individual test and preference data showed mixed results between ClearVoice programs making global recommendations difficult; however, results suggest providing ClearVoice High and Medium and HiRes 120 as processor options for adults willing to change settings. For adults unwilling or unable to change settings, ClearVoice Medium is a practical choice for daily listening.

Cochlear implantation in nontraditional candidates: preliminary results in adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, children are cochlear implant (CI) candidates if bilateral severe to profound hearing loss is present and amplification benefit is limited. The current study investigated abilities of adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss (one ear with severe to profound hearing loss and better hearing contralaterally), where the poorer ear received a CI and the better ear maintained amplification. STUDY DESIGN: Within-subject case study. SETTING: Pediatric hospital, outpatient clinic. PATIENTS: Participants were 5 adolescents who had not met traditional CI candidacy because of one better hearing ear but did have 1 ear that met criteria and was implanted. All maintained hearing aid (HA) use in the contralateral ear. In the poorer ear, before implant, 3 participants had used amplification, and the other 2 had no HA experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Participants were assessed in 3 listening conditions: HA alone, CI alone, and both devices together (bimodal) for speech recognition in quiet and noise and sound localization. RESULTS: Three participants had CI open-set speech recognition and significant bimodal improvement for speech recognition and localization compared with the HA or CI alone. Two participants had no CI speech recognition and limited bimodal improvement. CONCLUSION: Some adolescents with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical CI candidates can benefit from a CI in the poorer ear, compared with a HA in the better ear alone. Additional study is needed to determine outcomes for this population, especially those who have early onset profound hearing loss in one ear and limited HA experience.

Changes in auditory perceptions and cortex resulting from hearing recovery after extended congenital unilateral hearing loss.

Monaural hearing induces auditory system reorganization. Imbalanced input also degrades time-intensity cues for sound localization and signal segregation for listening in noise. While there have been studies of bilateral auditory deprivation and later hearing restoration (e.g., cochlear implants), less is known about unilateral auditory deprivation and subsequent hearing improvement. We investigated effects of long-term congenital unilateral hearing loss on localization, speech understanding, and cortical organization following hearing recovery. Hearing in the congenitally affected ear of a 41 year old female improved significantly after stapedotomy and reconstruction. Pre-operative hearing threshold levels showed unilateral, mixed, moderately-severe to profound hearing loss. The contralateral ear had hearing threshold levels within normal limits. Testing was completed prior to, and 3 and 9 months after surgery. Measurements were of sound localization with intensity-roved stimuli and speech recognition in various noise conditions. We also evoked magnetic resonance signals with monaural stimulation to the unaffected ear. Activation magnitudes were determined in core, belt, and parabelt auditory cortex regions via an interrupted single event design. Hearing improvement following 40 years of congenital unilateral hearing loss resulted in substantially improved sound localization and speech recognition in noise. Auditory cortex also reorganized. Contralateral auditory cortex responses were increased after hearing recovery and the extent of activated cortex was bilateral, including a greater portion of the posterior superior temporal plane. Thus, prolonged predominant monaural stimulation did not prevent auditory system changes consequent to restored binaural hearing. Results support future research of unilateral auditory deprivation effects and plasticity, with consideration for length of deprivation, age at hearing correction and degree and type of hearing loss.

Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined speech recognition, localization, temporal and spectral discrimination, and subjective reports of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral deafness. STUDY DESIGN: Three adult male participants with short-term unilateral deafness (<5 yr) participated. All had sudden onset of severe-to-profound hearing loss in 1 ear, which then received a CI, and normal or near normal hearing in the other ear. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, discrimination of temporal and spectral cues, and a subjective questionnaire were obtained over several days. Listening conditions were CI, normal hearing (NH) ear, and bilaterally (CI and NH). RESULTS: All participants had open-set speech recognition and excellent audibility (250-6,000 Hz) with the CI. Localization improved bilaterally compared with the NH ear alone. Word recognition in noise was significantly better bilaterally than with the NH ear for 2 participants. Sentence recognition in various noise conditions did not show significant bilateral improvement; however, the CI did not hinder performance in noise even when noise was toward the CI side. The addition of the CI improved temporal difference discrimination for 2 participants and spectral difference discrimination for all participants. Participants wore the CI full time, and subjective reports were positive. CONCLUSION: Overall, the CI recipients with unilateral deafness obtained open-set speech recognition, improved localization, improved word recognition in noise, and improved perception of their ability to hear in everyday life. A larger study is warranted to further quantify the benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral deafness.

Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.

BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants provide access to soft intensity sounds and therefore improved audibility for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech processor programming parameters, such as threshold (or T-level), input dynamic range (IDR), and microphone sensitivity, contribute to the recipient's program and influence audibility. When soundfield thresholds obtained through the speech processor are elevated, programming parameters can be modified to improve soft sound detection. Adult recipients show improved detection for low-level sounds when T-levels are set at raised levels and show better speech understanding in quiet when wider IDRs are used. Little is known about the effects of parameter settings on detection and speech recognition in children using today's cochlear implant technology. PURPOSE: The overall study aim was to assess optimal T-level, IDR, and sensitivity settings in pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. RESEARCH DESIGN: Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the effects of two T-level settings on soundfield thresholds and detection of the Ling 6 sounds. One program set T-levels at 10% of most comfortable levels (M-levels) and another at 10 current units (CUs) below the level judged as "soft." Experiment 2 examined the effects of IDR and sensitivity settings on speech recognition in quiet and noise. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants were 11 children 7-17 yr of age (mean 11.3) implanted with the Advanced Bionics High Resolution 90K or CII cochlear implant system who had speech recognition scores of 20% or greater on a monosyllabic word test. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two T-level programs were compared for detection of the Ling sounds and frequency modulated (FM) tones. Differing IDR/sensitivity programs (50/0, 50/10, 70/0, 70/10) were compared using Ling and FM tone detection thresholds, CNC (consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant) words at 50 dB SPL, and Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences at 65 dB SPL in the presence of four-talker babble (+8 signal-to-noise ratio). Outcomes were analyzed using a paired t-test and a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: T-levels set 10 CUs below "soft" resulted in significantly lower detection thresholds for all six Ling sounds and FM tones at 250, 1000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. When comparing programs differing by IDR and sensitivity, a 50 dB IDR with a 0 sensitivity setting showed significantly poorer thresholds for low frequency FM tones and voiced Ling sounds. Analysis of group mean scores for CNC words in quiet or HINT-C sentences in noise indicated no significant differences across IDR/sensitivity settings. Individual data, however, showed significant differences between IDR/sensitivity programs in noise; the optimal program differed across participants. CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant device, manually setting T-levels with ascending loudness judgments should be considered when possible or when low-level sounds are inaudible. Study findings confirm the need to determine program settings on an individual basis as well as the importance of speech recognition verification measures in both quiet and noise. Clinical guidelines are suggested for selection of programming parameters in both young and older children.

Evaluation of TIMIT sentence list equivalency with adult cochlear implant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Current measures used to determine sentence recognition abilities in cochlear implant recipients often include tests with one talker and one rate of speech. Performance with these measures may not accurately represent the speech recognition abilities of the listeners. Evaluation of cochlear implant performance should include measures that reflect realistic listening conditions. For example, the use of multiple talkers who vary in gender, rate of speech, and regional dialects represent varied communication interactions that people encounter daily. The TIMIT sentences, which use multiple talkers and incorporate these variations, provide additional test material for evaluating speech recognition. Dorman and colleagues created 34 lists of TIMIT sentences that were normalized for equal intelligibility using simulations of cochlear implant processing with normal-hearing listeners. Adults with sensorineural hearing loss who listen with cochlear implants represent a different population. Further study is needed to determine if these lists are equivalent for adult cochlear implant recipients and, if not, to identify a subset of lists that may be used with this population. PURPOSE: To evaluate the speech recognition equivalence of 34 TIMIT sentence lists with adult cochlear implant recipients. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective study comparing test-retest results within the same group of listeners. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-two adult cochlear implant recipients who met the inclusion criteria of at least 3 mo device use and a monosyllabic word score of 30% or greater participated in the study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Participants were administered 34 TIMIT sentence lists (20 sentences per list) at each of two test sessions several months apart. List order was randomized and results scored as percent of words correct. Test-retest correlations and 95% confidence intervals for the means were used to identify equivalent lists with high test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Mean list scores across participants ranged from 66 to 81% with an overall mean of 73%. Twenty-nine lists had high test-retest reliability. Using the overall mean as a benchmark, the 95% confidence intervals indicated that 25 of the remaining 29 lists were equivalent (e.g., the benchmark of 73% fell within the 95% confidence interval for both test and retest). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-five of the TIMIT lists evaluated are equivalent when used with adult cochlear implant recipients who have open-set word recognition abilities. These lists may prove valuable for monitoring progress, comparing listening conditions or treatments, and developing aural rehabilitation plans for cochlear implant recipients.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

OBJECTIVE: Bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is a standard criterion for cochlear implantation. Increasingly, patients are implanted in one ear and continue to use a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear to improve abilities such as sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Patients with severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and a more moderate hearing loss in the other ear (i.e., asymmetric hearing) are not typically considered candidates for cochlear implantation. Amplification in the poorer ear is often unsuccessful because of limited benefit, restricting the patient to unilateral listening from the better ear alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with asymmetric hearing loss could benefit from cochlear implantation in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. DESIGN: Ten adults with asymmetric hearing between ears participated. In the poorer ear, all participants met cochlear implant candidacy guidelines; seven had postlingual onset, and three had pre/perilingual onset of severe to profound hearing loss. All had open-set speech recognition in the better-hearing ear. Assessment measures included word and sentence recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in fixed noise (four-talker babble) and in diffuse restaurant noise using an adaptive procedure, localization of word stimuli, and a hearing handicap scale. Participants were evaluated preimplant with hearing aids and postimplant with the implant alone, the hearing aid alone in the better ear, and bimodally (the implant and hearing aid in combination). Postlingual participants were evaluated at 6 mo postimplant, and pre/perilingual participants were evaluated at 6 and 12 mo postimplant. Data analysis compared the following results: (1) the poorer-hearing ear preimplant (with hearing aid) and postimplant (with cochlear implant); (2) the device(s) used for everyday listening pre- and postimplant; and (3) the hearing aid-alone and bimodal listening conditions postimplant. RESULTS: The postlingual participants showed significant improvements in speech recognition after 6 mo cochlear implant use in the poorer ear. Five postlingual participants had a bimodal advantage over the hearing aid-alone condition on at least one test measure. On average, the postlingual participants had significantly improved localization with bimodal input compared with the hearing aid-alone. Only one pre/perilingual participant had open-set speech recognition with the cochlear implant. This participant had better hearing than the other two pre/perilingual participants in both the poorer and better ear. Localization abilities were not significantly different between the bimodal and hearing aid-alone conditions for the pre/perilingual participants. Mean hearing handicap ratings improved postimplant for all participants indicating perceived benefit in everyday life with the addition of the cochlear implant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical cochlear implant candidates can benefit from using a cochlear implant in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. For this group of 10, the 7 postlingually deafened participants showed greater benefits with the cochlear implant than the pre/perilingual participants; however, further study is needed to determine maximum benefit for those with early onset of hearing loss.