Sound Source Localization by Normal-Hearing Listeners, Hearing-Impaired Listeners and Cochlear Implant Listeners.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim was to determine whether listeners in the following patient groups achieve localization accuracy within the 95th percentile of accuracy shown by younger or older normal-hearing (NH) listeners: (1) hearing impaired with bilateral hearing aids, (2) bimodal cochlear implant (CI), (3) bilateral CI, (4) hearing preservation CI, (5) single-sided deaf CI and (6) combined bilateral CI and bilateral hearing preservation. DESIGN: The listeners included 57 young NH listeners, 12 older NH listeners, 17 listeners fit with hearing aids, 8 bimodal CI listeners, 32 bilateral CI listeners, 8 hearing preservation CI listeners, 13 single-sided deaf CI listeners and 3 listeners with bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation. Sound source localization was assessed in a sound-deadened room with 13 loudspeakers arrayed in a 180-degree arc. RESULTS: The root mean square (rms) error for the NH listeners was 6 degrees. The 95th percentile was 11 degrees. Nine of 16 listeners with bilateral hearing aids achieved scores within the 95th percentile of normal. Only 1 of 64 CI patients achieved a score within that range. Bimodal CI listeners scored at a level near chance, as did the listeners with a single CI or a single NH ear. Listeners with (1) bilateral CIs, (2) hearing preservation CIs, (3) single-sided deaf CIs and (4) both bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation, all showed rms error scores within a similar range (mean scores between 20 and 30 degrees of error). CONCLUSION: Modern CIs do not restore a normal level of sound source localization for CI listeners with access to sound information from two ears.

Sound source localization by hearing preservation patients with and without symmetrical low-frequency acoustic hearing.

The aim of this article was to study sound source localization by cochlear implant (CI) listeners with low-frequency (LF) acoustic hearing in both the operated ear and in the contralateral ear. Eight CI listeners had symmetrical LF acoustic hearing and 4 had asymmetrical LF acoustic hearing. The effects of two variables were assessed: (i) the symmetry of the LF thresholds in the two ears and (ii) the presence/absence of bilateral acoustic amplification. Stimuli consisted of low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise bursts presented in the frontal horizontal plane. Localization accuracy was 23° of error for the symmetrical listeners and 76° of error for the asymmetrical listeners. The presence of a unilateral CI used in conjunction with bilateral LF acoustic hearing does not impair sound source localization accuracy, but amplification for acoustic hearing can be detrimental to sound source localization accuracy.

Interaural level difference cues determine sound source localization by single-sided deaf patients fit with a cochlear implant.

In this report, we used filtered noise bands to constrain listeners' access to interaural level differences (ILDs) and interaural time differences (ITDs) in a sound source localization task. The samples of interest were listeners with single-sided deafness (SSD) who had been fit with a cochlear implant in the deafened ear (SSD-CI). The comparison samples included listeners with normal hearing and bimodal hearing, i.e., with a cochlear implant in 1 ear and low-frequency acoustic hearing in the other ear. The results indicated that (i) sound source localization was better in the SSD-CI condition than in the SSD condition, (ii) SSD-CI patients rely on ILD cues for sound source localization, (iii) SSD-CI patients show functional localization abilities within 1-3 months after device activation and (iv) SSD-CI patients show better sound source localization than bimodal CI patients but, on average, poorer localization than normal-hearing listeners. One SSD-CI patient showed a level of localization within normal limits. We provide an account for the relative localization abilities of the groups by reference to the differences in access to ILD cues.

Bimodal cochlear implants: the role of acoustic signal level in determining speech perception benefit.

The aim of this project was to determine for bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients, i.e. patients with low-frequency hearing in the ear contralateral to the implant, how speech understanding varies as a function of the difference in level between the CI signal and the acoustic signal. The data suggest that (1) acoustic signals perceived as significantly softer than a CI signal can contribute to speech understanding in the bimodal condition, (2) acoustic signals that are slightly softer than, or balanced with, a CI signal provide the largest benefit to speech understanding, and (3) acoustic signals presented at maximum comfortable loudness levels provide nearly as much benefit as signals that have been balanced with a CI signal.

Interaural level differences and sound source localization for bilateral cochlear implant patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (i) to determine the magnitude of the interaural level differences (ILDs) that remain after cochlear implant (CI) signal processing and (ii) to relate the ILDs to the pattern of errors for sound source localization on the horizontal plane. DESIGN: The listeners were 16 bilateral CI patients fitted with MED-EL CIs and 34 normal-hearing listeners. The stimuli were wideband, high-pass, and low-pass noise signals. ILDs were calculated by passing signals, filtered by head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) to a Matlab simulation of MED-EL signal processing. RESULTS: For the wideband signal and high-pass signals, maximum ILDs of 15 to 17 dB in the input signal were reduced to 3 to 4 dB after CI signal processing. For the low-pass signal, ILDs were reduced to 1 to 2 dB. For wideband and high-pass signals, the largest ILDs for ±15 degree speaker locations were between 0.4 and 0.7 dB; for the ±30 degree speaker locations between 0.9 and 1.3 dB; for the 45 degree speaker locations between 2.4 and 2.9 dB; for the ±60 degree speaker locations, between 3.2 and 4.1 dB; and for the ±75 degree speaker locations between 2.7 and 3.4 dB. All of the CI patients in all the stimulus conditions showed poorer localization than the normal-hearing listeners. Localization accuracy for the CI patients was best for the wideband and high-pass signals and was poorest for the low-pass signal. CONCLUSIONS: Localization accuracy was related to the magnitude of the ILD cues available to the normal-hearing listeners and CI patients. The pattern of localization errors for the CI patients was related to the magnitude of the ILD differences among loudspeaker locations. The error patterns for the wideband and high-pass signals, suggest that, for the conditions of this experiment, patients, on an average, sorted signals on the horizontal plane into four sectors-on each side of the midline, one sector including 0, 15, and possibly 30 degree speaker locations, and a sector from 45 degree speaker locations to 75 degree speaker locations. The resolution within a sector was relatively poor.

Development and validation of the pediatric AzBio sentence lists.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to create and validate a new set of sentence lists that could be used to evaluate the speech-perception abilities of listeners with hearing loss in cases where adult materials are inappropriate due to difficulty level or content. The authors aimed to generate a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty for the evaluation of performance over time and across conditions. DESIGN: The original Pediatric AzBio sentence corpus included 450 sentences recorded from one female talker. All sentences included in the corpus were successfully repeated by kindergarten and first-grade students with normal hearing. The mean intelligibility of each sentence was estimated by processing each sentence through a cochlear implant simulation and calculating the mean percent correct score achieved by 15 normal-hearing listeners. After sorting sentences by mean percent correct scores, 320 sentences were assigned to 16 lists of equivalent difficulty. List equivalency was then validated by presenting all sentence lists, in a novel random order, to adults and children with hearing loss. A final-validation stage examined single-list comparisons from adult and pediatric listeners tested in research or clinical settings. RESULTS: The results of the simulation study allowed for the creation of 16 lists of 20 sentences. The average intelligibility of each list ranged from 78.4 to 78.7%. List equivalency was then validated, when the results of 16 adult cochlear implant users and 9 pediatric hearing aid and cochlear implant users revealed no significant differences across lists. The binomial distribution model was used to account for the inherent variability observed in the lists. This model was also used to generate 95% confidence intervals for one and two list comparisons. A retrospective analysis of 361 instances from 78 adult cochlear implant users and 48 instances from 36 pediatric cochlear implant users revealed that the 95% confidence intervals derived from the model captured 94% of all responses (385 of 409). CONCLUSIONS: The cochlear implant simulation was shown to be an effective method for estimating the intelligibility of individual sentences for use in the evaluation of cochlear implant users. Furthermore, the method used for constructing equivalent sentence lists and estimating the inherent variability of the materials has also been validated. Thus, the AzBio Pediatric Sentence Lists are equivalent and appropriate for the assessment of speech-understanding abilities of children with hearing loss as well as adults for whom performance on AzBio sentences is near the floor.

Localization and speech understanding by a patient with bilateral cochlear implants and bilateral hearing preservation.

OBJECTIVES: The authors describe the localization and speech-understanding abilities of a patient fit with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) for whom acoustic low-frequency hearing was preserved in both cochleae. DESIGN: Three signals were used in the localization experiments: low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise. Speech understanding was assessed with the AzBio sentences presented in noise. RESULTS: Localization accuracy was best in the aided, bilateral acoustic hearing condition, and was poorer in both the bilateral CI condition and when the bilateral CIs were used in addition to bilateral low-frequency hearing. Speech understanding was best when low-frequency acoustic hearing was combined with at least one CI. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that (1) for sound source localization in patients with bilateral CIs and bilateral hearing preservation, interaural level difference cues may dominate interaural time difference cues and (2) hearing-preservation surgery can be of benefit to patients fit with bilateral CIs.

Sound source localization of filtered noises by listeners with normal hearing: a statistical analysis.

Several measures of sound source localization performance of 45 listeners with normal hearing were obtained when loudspeakers were in the front hemifield. Localization performance was not statistically affected by filtering the 200-ms, 2-octave or wider noise bursts (125 to 500, 1500 to 6000, and 125 to 6000 Hz wide noise bursts). This implies that sound source localization performance for noise stimuli is not differentially affected by which interaural cue (interaural time or level difference) a listener with normal hearing uses for sound source localization, at least for relatively broadband signals. This sound source localization task suggests that listeners with normal hearing perform with high reliability/repeatability, little response bias, and with performance measures that are normally distributed with a mean root-mean-square error of 6.2° and a standard deviation of 1.79°.

Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to create and validate a new set of sentence lists that could be used to evaluate the speech perception abilities of hearing-impaired listeners and cochlear implant (CI) users. Our intention was to generate a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty for the evaluation of performance over time and across conditions. DESIGN: The AzBio sentence corpus includes 1000 sentences recorded from two female and two male talkers. The mean intelligibility of each sentence was estimated by processing each sentence through a five-channel CI simulation and calculating the mean percent correct score achieved by 15 normal-hearing listeners. Sentences from each talker were sorted by percent correct score, and 165 sentences were selected from each talker and were then sequentially assigned to 33 lists, each containing 20 sentences (5 sentences from each talker). List equivalency was validated by presenting all lists, in random order, to 15 CI users. RESULTS: Using sentence scores from the CI simulation study produced 33 lists of sentences with a mean score of 85% correct. The results of the validation study with CI users revealed no significant differences in percent correct scores for 29 of the 33 sentence lists. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance on the 29 lists. The binomial distribution model was used to account for the inherent variability observed in the lists. This model was also used to generate 95% confidence intervals for one and two list comparisons. A retrospective analysis of 172 instances where research subjects had been tested on two lists within a single condition revealed that 94% of results were accurately contained within these confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a five-channel CI simulation to estimate the intelligibility of individual sentences allowed for the creation of a large number of sentence lists with an equivalent level of difficulty. The results of the validation procedure with CI users found that 29 of 33 lists allowed scores that were not statistically different. However, individual listeners demonstrated considerable variability in performance across lists. This variability was accurately described by the binomial distribution model and was used to estimate the magnitude of change required to achieve statistical significance when comparing scores from one and two lists per condition. Fifteen sentence lists have been included in the AzBio Sentence Test for use in the clinical evaluation of hearing-impaired listeners and CI users. An additional eight sentence lists have been included in the Minimum Speech Test Battery to be distributed by the CI manufacturers for the evaluation of CI candidates.

Current research with cochlear implants at Arizona State University.

In this article we review, and discuss the clinical implications of, five projects currently underway in the Cochlear Implant Laboratory at Arizona State University. The projects are (1) norming the AzBio sentence test, (2) comparing the performance of bilateral and bimodal cochlear implant (CI) patients in realistic listening environments, (3) accounting for the benefit provided to bimodal patients by low-frequency acoustic stimulation, (4) assessing localization by bilateral hearing aid patients and the implications of that work for hearing preservation patients, and (5) studying heart rate variability as a possible measure for quantifying the stress of listening via an implant. The long-term goals of the laboratory are to improve the performance of patients fit with cochlear implants and to understand the mechanisms, physiological or electronic, that underlie changes in performance. We began our work with cochlear implant patients in the mid-1980s and received our first grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for work with implanted patients in 1989. Since that date our work with cochlear implant patients has been funded continuously by the NIH. In this report we describe some of the research currently being conducted in our laboratory.

Word recognition following implantation of conventional and 10-mm hybrid electrodes.

We compared the effectiveness of 2 surgical interventions for improving word recognition ability in a quiet environment among patients who presented with: (1) bilateral, precipitously sloping, high-frequency hearing loss; (2) relatively good auditory thresholds at and below 500 Hz, and (3) poor speech recognition. In 1 intervention (n = 25), a conventional electrode array was inserted into 1 cochlea. As a consequence, hearing was lost in the implanted ear. In the other intervention (n = 22), a Nucleus Hybrid short-electrode array was inserted 10 mm into 1 cochlea with the aim of preserving hearing in that ear. Both groups of patients had similar low-frequency hearing and speech understanding in the ear contralateral to the implant. Following surgery, both groups had significantly higher word recognition scores than before surgery. Between-group comparisons indicated that the conventional electrode array group had higher word recognition scores than the 10-mm group when stimulation was presented to the operated ear and when stimulation was presented to both ears.

Speech Understanding and Sound Source Localization by Cochlear Implant Listeners Using a Pinna-Effect Imitating Microphone and an Adaptive Beamformer.

BACKGROUND: Sentence understanding scores for patients with cochlear implants (CIs) when tested in quiet are relatively high. However, sentence understanding scores for patients with CIs plummet with the addition of noise. PURPOSE: To assess, for patients with CIs (MED-EL), (1) the value to speech understanding of two new, noise-reducing microphone settings and (2) the effect of the microphone settings on sound source localization. RESEARCH DESIGN: Single-subject, repeated measures design. For tests of speech understanding, repeated measures on (1) number of CIs (one, two), (2) microphone type (omni, natural, adaptive beamformer), and (3) type of noise (restaurant, cocktail party). For sound source localization, repeated measures on type of signal (low-pass [LP], high-pass [HP], broadband noise). STUDY SAMPLE: Ten listeners, ranging in age from 48 to 83 yr (mean = 57 yr), participated in this prospective study. INTERVENTION: Speech understanding was assessed in two noise environments using monaural and bilateral CIs fit with three microphone types. Sound source localization was assessed using three microphone types. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: In Experiment 1, sentence understanding scores (in terms of percent words correct) were obtained in quiet and in noise. For each patient, noise was first added to the signal to drive performance off of the ceiling in the bilateral CI-omni microphone condition. The other conditions were then administered at that signal-to-noise ratio in quasi-random order. In Experiment 2, sound source localization accuracy was assessed for three signal types using a 13-loudspeaker array over a 180° arc. The dependent measure was root-mean-score error. RESULTS: Both the natural and adaptive microphone settings significantly improved speech understanding in the two noise environments. The magnitude of the improvement varied between 16 and 19 percentage points for tests conducted in the restaurant environment and between 19 and 36 percentage points for tests conducted in the cocktail party environment. In the restaurant and cocktail party environments, both the natural and adaptive settings, when implemented on a single CI, allowed scores that were as good as, or better, than scores in the bilateral omni test condition. Sound source localization accuracy was unaltered by either the natural or adaptive settings for LP, HP, or wideband noise stimuli. CONCLUSION: The data support the use of the natural microphone setting as a default setting. The natural setting (1) provides better speech understanding in noise than the omni setting, (2) does not impair sound source localization, and (3) retains low-frequency sensitivity to signals from the rear. Moreover, bilateral CIs equipped with adaptive beamforming technology can engender speech understanding scores in noise that fall only a little short of scores for a single CI in quiet.

Speech Understanding in Noise for Adults With Cochlear Implants: Effects of Hearing Configuration, Source Location Certainty, and Head Movement.

Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to assess speech understanding in quiet and in diffuse noise for adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients utilizing bimodal hearing or bilateral CIs. Our primary hypothesis was that bilateral CI recipients would demonstrate less effect of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition due to symmetric interaural head shadow. Method: Sentence recognition was assessed for adult bilateral (n = 25) CI users and bimodal listeners (n = 12) in three conditions: (1) source location certainty regarding fixed target azimuth, (2) source location uncertainty regarding roving target azimuth, and (3) Condition 2 repeated, allowing listeners to turn their heads, as needed. Results: (a) Bilateral CI users exhibited relatively similar performance regardless of source azimuth in the bilateral CI condition; (b) bimodal listeners exhibited higher performance for speech directed to the better hearing ear even in the bimodal condition; (c) the unilateral, better ear condition yielded higher performance for speech presented to the better ear versus speech to the front or to the poorer ear; (d) source location certainty did not affect speech understanding performance; and (e) head turns did not improve performance. The results confirmed our hypothesis that bilateral CI users exhibited less effect of source azimuth than bimodal listeners. That is, they exhibited similar performance for speech recognition irrespective of source azimuth, whereas bimodal listeners exhibited significantly poorer performance with speech originating from the poorer hearing ear (typically the nonimplanted ear). Conclusions: Bilateral CI users overcame ear and source location effects observed for the bimodal listeners. Bilateral CI users have access to head shadow on both sides, whereas bimodal listeners generally have interaural asymmetry in both speech understanding and audible bandwidth limiting the head shadow benefit obtained from the poorer ear (generally the nonimplanted ear). In summary, we found that, in conditions with source location uncertainty and increased ecological validity, bilateral CI performance was superior to bimodal listening.

An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

The aim of this study was to relate the pitch of high-rate electrical stimulation delivered to individual cochlear implant electrodes to electrode insertion depth and insertion angle. The patient (CH1) was able to provide pitch matches between electric and acoustic stimulation because he had auditory thresholds in his nonimplanted ear ranging between 30 and 60 dB HL over the range, 250 Hz to 8 kHz. Electrode depth and insertion angle were measured from high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of the patient's temporal bones. The scans were used to create a 3D image volume reconstruction of the cochlea, which allowed visualization of electrode position within the scala. The method of limits was used to establish pitch matches between acoustic pure tones and electric stimulation (a 1,652-pps, unmodulated, pulse train). The pitch matching data demonstrated that, for insertion angles of greater than 450 degrees or greater than approximately 20 mm insertion depth, pitch saturated at approximately 420 Hz. From 20 to 15 mm insertion depth pitch estimates were about one-half octave lower than the Greenwood function. From 13 to 3 mm insertion depth the pitch estimates were approximately one octave lower than the Greenwood function. The pitch match for an electrode only 3.4 mm into the cochlea was 3,447 Hz. These data are consistent with other reports, e.g., Boëx et al. (2006), of a frequency-to-place map for the electrically stimulated cochlea in which perceived pitches for stimulation on individual electrodes are significantly lower than those predicted by the Greenwood function for stimulation at the level of the hair cell.

Using ILD or ITD Cues for Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in a Complex Listening Environment by Listeners With Bilateral and With Hearing-Preservation Cochlear Implants.

PURPOSE: To assess the role of interaural time differences and interaural level differences in (a) sound-source localization, and (b) speech understanding in a cocktail party listening environment for listeners with bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) and for listeners with hearing-preservation CIs. METHODS: Eleven bilateral listeners with MED-EL (Durham, NC) CIs and 8 listeners with hearing-preservation CIs with symmetrical low frequency, acoustic hearing using the MED-EL or Cochlear device were evaluated using 2 tests designed to task binaural hearing, localization, and a simulated cocktail party. Access to interaural cues for localization was constrained by the use of low-pass, high-pass, and wideband noise stimuli. RESULTS: Sound-source localization accuracy for listeners with bilateral CIs in response to the high-pass noise stimulus and sound-source localization accuracy for the listeners with hearing-preservation CIs in response to the low-pass noise stimulus did not differ significantly. Speech understanding in a cocktail party listening environment improved for all listeners when interaural cues, either interaural time difference or interaural level difference, were available. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study indicate that similar degrees of benefit to sound-source localization and speech understanding in complex listening environments are possible with 2 very different rehabilitation strategies: the provision of bilateral CIs and the preservation of hearing.

Sound Source Localization and Speech Understanding in Complex Listening Environments by Single-sided Deaf Listeners After Cochlear Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To assess improvements in sound source localization and speech understanding in complex listening environments after unilateral cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness (SSD). STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized, open, prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Nine subjects with a unilateral cochlear implant (CI) for SSD (SSD-CI) were tested. Reference groups for the task of sound source localization included young (n = 45) and older (n = 12) normal-hearing (NH) subjects and 27 bilateral CI (BCI) subjects. INTERVENTION: Unilateral cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sound source localization was tested with 13 loudspeakers in a 180 arc in front of the subject. Speech understanding was tested with the subject seated in an 8-loudspeaker sound system arrayed in a 360-degree pattern. Directionally appropriate noise, originally recorded in a restaurant, was played from each loudspeaker. Speech understanding in noise was tested using the Azbio sentence test and sound source localization quantified using root mean square error. RESULTS: All CI subjects showed poorer-than-normal sound source localization. SSD-CI subjects showed a bimodal distribution of scores: six subjects had scores near the mean of those obtained by BCI subjects, whereas three had scores just outside the 95th percentile of NH listeners. Speech understanding improved significantly in the restaurant environment when the signal was presented to the side of the CI. CONCLUSION: Cochlear implantation for SSD can offer improved speech understanding in complex listening environments and improved sound source localization in both children and adults. On tasks of sound source localization, SSD-CI patients typically perform as well as BCI patients and, in some cases, achieve scores at the upper boundary of normal performance.

Factors constraining the benefit to speech understanding of combining information from low-frequency hearing and a cochlear implant.

Many studies have documented the benefits to speech understanding when cochlear implant (CI) patients can access low-frequency acoustic information from the ear opposite the implant. In this study we assessed the role of three factors in determining the magnitude of bimodal benefit - (i) the level of CI-only performance, (ii) the magnitude of the hearing loss in the ear with low-frequency acoustic hearing and (iii) the type of test material. The patients had low-frequency PTAs (average of 125, 250 and 500 Hz) varying over a large range (<30 dB HL to >70 dB HL) in the ear contralateral to the implant. The patients were tested with (i) CNC words presented in quiet (n = 105) (ii) AzBio sentences presented in quiet (n = 102), (iii) AzBio sentences in noise at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (n = 69), and (iv) AzBio sentences at +5 dB SNR (n = 64). We find maximum bimodal benefit when (i) CI scores are less than 60 percent correct, (ii) hearing loss is less than 60 dB HL in low-frequencies and (iii) the test material is sentences presented against a noise background. When these criteria are met, some bimodal patients can gain 40-60 percentage points in performance relative to performance with a CI. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled .

BILATERAL AND BIMODAL BENEFITS AS A FUNCTION OF AGE FOR ADULTS FITTED WITH A COCHLEAR IMPLANT.

BACKGROUND: Both bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) and bimodal (electric plus contralateral acoustic) stimulation can provide better speech intelligibility than a single CI. In both cases patients need to combine information from two ears into a single percept. In this paper we ask whether the physiological and psychological processes associated with aging alter the ability of bilateral and bimodal CI patients to combine information across two ears in the service of speech understanding. MATERIALS: The subjects were 61 adult, bilateral CI patients and 94 adult, bimodal patients. The test battery was composed of monosyllabic words presented in quiet and the AzBio sentences presented in quiet, at +10 and at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). METHODS: The subjects were tested in standard audiometric sound booths. Speech and noise were always presented from a single speaker directly in front of the listener. RESULTS: Age and bilateral or bimodal benefit were not significantly correlated for any test measure. CONCLUSIONS: Other factors being equal, both bilateral CIs and bimodal CIs can be recommended for elderly patients.

Performance of patients using different cochlear implant systems: effects of input dynamic range.

OBJECTIVE: To determine, for patients who had identical levels of performance on a monosyllabic word test presented in quiet, whether device differences would affect performance when tested with other materials and in other test conditions. DESIGN: For Experiment 1, from a test population of 76 patients, three groups (N = 13 in each group) were created. Patients in the first group used the CII Bionic Ear behind-the-ear (BTE) speech processor, patients in the second group used the Esprit3G BTE speech processor, and patients in the third group used the Tempo+ BTE speech processor. The patients in each group were matched on (i) monosyllabic word scores in quiet, (ii) age at testing, (iii) duration of deafness, and (iv) experience with their device. Performance of the three groups was compared on a battery of tests of speech understanding, voice discrimination, and melody recognition. In Experiments 2 (N = 10) and 3 (N = 10) the effects of increasing input dynamic range in the 3G and CII devices, respectively, was assessed with sentence material presented at conversational levels in quiet, conversational levels in noise, and soft levels in quiet. RESULTS: Experiment 1 revealed that patients fit with the CII processor achieved higher scores than Esprit3G and Tempo+ patients on tests of vowel recognition. CII and Tempo+ patients achieved higher scores than Esprit3G patients on difficult sentence material presented in noise at +10 and +5 dB SNR. CII patients achieved higher scores than Esprit3G patients on difficult sentence material presented at a soft level (54 dB SPL). Experiment 2 revealed that increasing input dynamic range in the Esprit3G device had (i) no effect at conversational levels in quiet, (ii) degraded performance in noise, and (iii) improved performance at soft levels. Experiment 3 revealed that increasing input dynamic range in the CII device improved performance in all conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in implant design can affect patient performance, especially in difficult listening situations. Input dynamic range and the method by which compression is implemented appear to be the major factors that account for our results.