Search

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the increased instantaneous input dynamic range (IIDR) in the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant (CI) system on recipients' ability to perceive soft speech and speech in noise. Ten adult Freedom CI recipients participated. Two maps differing in IIDR were placed on each subject's processor at initial activation. The IIDR was set to 30 dB for one map and 40 dB for the other. Subjects used both maps for at least one month prior to speech perception testing. Results revealed significantly higher scores for words (50 dB SPL), for sentences in background babble (65 dB SPL), and significantly lower sound field threshold levels with the 40 compared to the 30 dB IIDR map. Ceiling effects may have contributed to non-significant findings for sentences in quiet (50 dB SPL). The Freedom's increased IIDR allows better perception of soft speech and speech in noise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thirty 'new' lists of monosyllabic words were created at the University of Melbourne and recorded by Australian and American English speakers. These new lists and the ten original CNC lists (Peterson and Lehiste, 1962) were used during the feasibility study of the Nucleus Research Platform 8 Cochlear Implant System (Holden et al, 2004). Performance was similar across original and new lists for six implanted Australian subjects; for four implanted U.S. subjects, mean performance was 23 percentage points lower with the new than with the original lists. To evaluate differences between original and new lists for the American English recording, 22 CI recipients were administered all 40 CNC lists (30 new and 10 original lists). The overall mean word score for the new lists was significantly lower (22.3 percentage points) than for the original lists. Acoustic analysis revealed that decreased performance was most likely due to reduced amplitudes of certain initial and final consonants. The new CNC lists can be used as more difficult test material for clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The choice of frequency boundaries for the analysis channels of cochlear implants has been shown to impact the speech perception performance of adult recipients (Skinner et al, 1995; Fourakis et al, 2004). While technological limitations heretofore have limited the clinical feasibility of investigating novel frequency assignments, the SPEAR3 research processor affords the opportunity to investigate an unlimited number of possibilities. Here, four different assignments are evaluated using a variety of speech stimuli. All participants accommodated to assignment changes, and no one assignment was significantly preferred. The results suggest that better performance can be achieved using a strategy whereby (1) there are at least 7-8 electrodes allocated below 1000 Hz, (2) the majority of remaining electrodes are allocated between 1100-3000 Hz, and (3) the region above 3 kHz is represented by relatively few electrodes (i.e., 1-3). The results suggest that such frequency assignment flexibility should be made clinically available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two speech processor programs (MAPs) differing only in electrode frequency boundary assignments were created for each of eight Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant recipients. The default MAPs used typical frequency boundaries, and the experimental MAPs reassigned one additional electrode to vowel formant regions. Four objective speech tests and a questionnaire were used to evaluate speech recognition with the two MAPs. Results for the closed-set vowel test and the formant discrimination test showed small but significant improvement in scores with the experimental MAP. Differences for the Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant word test and closed-set consonant test were nonsignificant. Feature analysis revealed no significant differences in information transmission. Seven of the eight subjects preferred the experimental MAP, reporting louder, crisper, and clearer sound. The results suggest that Nucleus 24 recipients should be given an opportunity to compare a MAP that assigns more electrodes in vowel formant regions with the default MAP to determine which provides the most benefit in everyday life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Hearing loss, especially moderate to severe forms, has the potential to negatively affect an individual's physical, social, emotional, and cognitive well-being. Moreover, having ineffective binaural hearing increases difficulty understanding speech in noise and leads to a greater degree of social isolation and loneliness and a reduced quality of life (QoL)., Objective: To explore the audiometric and holistic effects of cochlear implantation in a group of adults 65 years or older compared with an optimized bilateral hearing aid condition., Design, Setting, and Participants: This ad hoc secondary analysis of a prospective, single-subject, repeated-measures nonrandomized clinical trial included 13 cochlear implantation centers across the United States. Participants 65 years or older with postlingual bilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss with aided Consonant-Vowel Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores in quiet of 40% or less in the ear to undergo implantation and 50% or less in the contralateral ear were included in the analysis. Baseline QoL testing was performed after 1 month of optimized bilateral hearing aid use. Participants were enrolled from February 20, 2017, to May 3, 2018, and follow-up was completed December 21, 2018. Data were analyzed from March 25, 2019, to March 31, 2020., Interventions: Unilateral implantation with a slim, modiolar cochlear implant device. Hearing aid use in the contralateral ear was required through the 6-month primary end-point interval., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary objective was to evaluate speech perception before and 6 months after activation of a new cochlear implant. Secondary objectives were QoL metrics in the everyday listening condition before and 6 months after implantation., Results: Seventy participants (51 men [73%]) with a median age of 74 (range, 65-91) years were included in the analysis. No major adverse events occurred. Mixed-model analysis with estimated marginal means and 95% CIs compared preimplantation baseline performance with 6-month postimplantation performance. A clinically important improvement in CNC words was shown in the bimodal condition, with a mean difference of 37.2% (95% CI, 32.0%-42.4%), and in the unilateral (cochlear implant only) condition, with a mean difference of 44.1% (95% CI, 39.0%-49.2%). A clinically important improvement in noise (AzBio sentences signal-to-noise ratio of +10 dB) was also shown, with a mean difference of 21.6% (95% CI, 15.7%-27.5%) in the bimodal condition and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3%-30.7%) in the unilateral condition. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 multiple-attribute score improved by 0.186 (95% CI, 0.136-0.234); the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale total score improved by 2.58 (95% CI, 2.18-2.99); and a novel Device Use Questionnaire reported 94% of participants were satisfied with overall hearing in the everyday listening condition., Conclusions and Relevance: This subgroup analysis of patients 65 years or older enrolled in a within-subject clinical trial of cochlear implantation demonstrated clinically meaningful audiometric and QoL benefit with an acceptable risk profile. These findings suggest that cochlear implantation in older adults may facilitate the concept of healthy aging., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03007472.

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).

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., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

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.

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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.

Objective: A great deal of variability exists in the speech-recognition abilities of postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. A number of previous studies have shown that duration of deafness is a primary factor affecting CI outcomes; however, there is little agreement regarding other factors that may affect performance. The objective of the present study was to determine the source of variability in CI outcomes by examining three main factors, biographic/audiologic information, electrode position within the cochlea, and cognitive abilities in a group of newly implanted CI recipients., Design: Participants were 114 postlingually deaf adults with either the Cochlear or Advanced Bionics CI systems. Biographic/audiologic information, aided sentence-recognition scores, a high resolution temporal bone CT scan and cognitive measures were obtained before implantation. Monosyllabic word recognition scores were obtained during numerous test intervals from 2 weeks to 2 years after initial activation of the CI. Electrode position within the cochlea was determined by three-dimensional reconstruction of pre- and postimplant CT scans. Participants' word scores over 2 years were fit with a logistic curve to predict word score as a function of time and to highlight 4-word recognition metrics (CNC initial score, CNC final score, rise time to 90% of CNC final score, and CNC difference score)., Results: Participants were divided into six outcome groups based on the percentile ranking of their CNC final score, that is, participants in the bottom 10% were in group 1; those in the top 10% were in group 6. Across outcome groups, significant relationships from low to high performance were identified. Biographic/audiologic factors of age at implantation, duration of hearing loss, duration of hearing aid use, and duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss were significantly and inversely related to performance as were frequency modulated tone, sound-field threshold levels obtained with the CI. That is, the higher-performing outcome groups were younger in age at the time of implantation, had shorter duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss, and had lower CI sound-field threshold levels. Significant inverse relationships across outcome groups were also observed for electrode position, specifically the percentage of electrodes in scala vestibuli as opposed to scala tympani and depth of insertion of the electrode array. In addition, positioning of electrode arrays closer to the modiolar wall was positively correlated with outcome. Cognitive ability was significantly and positively related to outcome; however, age at implantation and cognition were highly correlated. After controlling for age, cognition was no longer a factor affecting outcomes., Conclusion: There are a number of factors that limit CI outcomes. They can act singularly or collectively to restrict an individual's performance and to varying degrees. The highest performing CI recipients are those with the least number of limiting factors. Knowledge of when and how these factors affect performance can favorably influence counseling, device fitting, and rehabilitation for individual patients and can contribute to improved device design and application.

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., (American Academy of Audiology.)

This case study describes a 45-yr-old female with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss due to Ménière's disease. She received her first cochlear implant in the right ear in 2008 and the second cochlear implant in the left ear in 2010. The case study examines the enhancement to speech recognition, particularly in noise, provided by bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition tests were administered prior to obtaining the second implant and at a number of test intervals following activation of the second device. Speech recognition in quiet and noise as well as localization abilities were assessed in several conditions to determine bilateral benefit and performance differences between ears. The results of the speech recognition testing indicated a substantial improvement in the patient's ability to understand speech in noise and her ability to localize sound when using bilateral cochlear implants compared to using a unilateral implant or an implant and a hearing aid. In addition, the patient reported considerable improvement in her ability to communicate in daily life when using bilateral implants versus a unilateral implant. This case suggests that cochlear implantation is a viable option for patients who have lost their hearing to Ménière's disease even when a number of medical treatments and surgical interventions have been performed to control vertigo. In the case presented, bilateral cochlear implantation was necessary for this patient to communicate successfully at home and at work., (American Academy of Audiology.)

Objective: This study aimed to provide guidelines to optimize perception of soft speech and speech in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant (CI) users., Design: Three programs differing in T-levels were created for ten subjects. Using the T-level setting that provided the lowest FM-tone, sound-field threshold levels for each subject, three additional programs were created with input dynamic range (IDR) settings of 50, 65 and 80 dB., Study Sample: Subjects were postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with either the Clarion CII or 90K CI devices., Results: Sound-field threshold levels were lowest with T-levels set higher than 10% of M-levels and with the two widest IDRs. Group data revealed significantly higher scores for CNC words presented at a soft level with an IDR of 80 dB and 65 dB compared to 50 dB. Although no significant group differences were seen between the three IDRs for sentences in noise, significant individual differences were present., Conclusions: Setting Ts higher than the manufacturer's recommendation of 10% of M-levels and providing IDR options can improve overall speech perception; however, for some users, higher Ts and wider IDRs may not be appropriate. Based on the results of the study, clinical programming recommendations are provided.

One of the difficulties faced by cochlear implant (CI) recipients is perception of low-intensity speech cues. A. E. Vandali (2001) has developed the transient emphasis spectral maxima (TESM) strategy to amplify short-duration, low-level sounds. The aim of the present study was to determine whether speech scores would be significantly higher with TESM than with the advanced combination encoder (ACE) strategy fitted using procedures that optimize perception of soft speech and other sounds. Eight adult recipients of the Nucleus 24 CI system participated in this study. No significant differences in scores were seen between ACE and TESM for consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented at 55 and 65 dB SPL, for sentences in noise presented at 65 dB SPL at 2 different signal-to-noise ratios, or for closed-set vowels and consonants presented at 60 dB SPL. However, perception of stop consonants within CNC words presented at the lower level (55 dB SPL) was significantly higher with TESM than ACE. In addition, percentage of information transmitted for words at 55 dB SPL was significantly higher with TESM than with ACE for manner and voicing features for consonants in the initial word position. Analysis of closed-set consonants presented at 60 dB SPL revealed percentage of information transmitted for manner was significantly higher with TESM than with ACE. These improvements with TESM were small compared with those reported by Vandali for recipients of the Nucleus 22 CI system. It appears that mapping techniques used to program speech processors and improved processing capabilities of the Nucleus 24 system contributed to soft sounds being understood almost as well with ACE as with TESM. However, half of the participants preferred TESM to ACE for use in everyday life, and all but 1 used TESM in specific listening situations. Clinically, TESM may be useful to ensure the audibility of low-intensity, short-duration acoustic cues that are important for understanding speech, for recipients who are difficult to map, or if insufficient time precludes the use of mapping techniques to increase audibility of soft sound.

This study extended the findings of Ketten et al. [Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 175:1-16 (1998)] by estimating the three-dimensional (3D) cochlear lengths, electrode array intracochlear insertion depths, and characteristic frequency ranges for 13 more Nucleus-22 implant recipients based on in vivo computed tomography (CT) scans. Array insertion depths were correlated with NU-6 word scores (obtained one year after SPEAK strategy use) by these patients and the 13 who used the SPEAK strategy from the Ketten et al. study. For these 26 patients, the range of cochlear lengths was 29.1-37.4 mm. Array insertion depth range was 11.9-25.9 mm, and array insertion depth estimated from the surgeon's report was 1.14 mm longer than CT-based estimates. Given the assumption that the human hearing range is fixed (20-20,000 Hz) regardless of cochlear length, characteristic frequencies at the most apical electrode (estimated with Greenwood's equation [Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency--position function of several species--29 years later. J Acoust. Soc. Am. 33: 1344-1356] and a patient-specific constant as) ranged from 308 to 3674 Hz. Patients' NU-6 word scores were significantly correlated with insertion depth as a percentage of total cochlear length (R = 0.452; r2 = 0.204; p = 0.020), suggesting that part of the variability in word recognition across implant recipients can be accounted for by the position of the electrode array in the cochlea. However, NU-6 scores ranged from 4% to 81% correct for patients with array insertion depths between 47% and 68% of total cochlear length. Lower scores appeared related to low spiral ganglion cell survival (e.g., lues), aberrant current paths that produced facial nerve stimulation by apical electrodes (i.e., otosclerosis), central auditory processing difficulty, below-average verbal abilities, and early Alzheimer's disease. Higher scores appeared related to patients' high-average to above-average verbal abilities. Because most patients' scores increased with SPEAK use, it is hypothesized that they accommodated to the shift in frequency of incoming sound to a higher pitch percept with the implant than would normally be perceived acoustically.

Clinically, speech processor programs are created using electrical thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs) at several different stimulation rates to determine what rate will provide cochlear implant recipients with the best speech recognition when using fast-rate speech coding strategies. This study was designed to determine the difference in thresholds and MALs (expressed in the clinical unit, Current Level [CL]) for pairs of six rates spanning those available with the Nucleus 24 device (i.e., 250 to 2,400 pps/ch) using monopolar, 25 microsec/phase stimulation. Test-retest measures of threshold and MAL for each rate were obtained from seven adult Nucleus 24 recipients on each of 11 electrodes. The difference in threshold and in MAL between pairs of rates was dependent on the absolute CL. Below approximately 190 CL, thresholds and MALs decreased with increasing rate; above 210 CL, there was little change in threshold or MAL with increasing rate. Based on these findings, an approach to estimating threshold and MAL from one rate to another is suggested, pending further research.

Minimum stimulation levels for active electrodes in a Nucleus 22 cochlear implant were set at threshold (clinical default value) and raised levels (M = +2.04 dB) to determine if raised levels would improve recipients' understanding of soft speech sounds with the SPEAK speech coding strategy. Eight postlinguistically deaf adults participated in a 4-phase A1B1A2B2 test design. Speech recognition was evaluated with consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet and sentences in noise, both presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL during 2 weekly sessions at the end of each phase. Group mean scores were significantly higher with the raised level program for words and phonemes at 50 and 60 dB SPL and for sentences at 50 and 70 dB SPL. All participants chose to use the raised level program in everyday life at the end of the study. The results suggest that clinical use of a raised level program for Nucleus 22 recipients has the potential to make soft sounds louder and, therefore, more salient in everyday life. Further research is needed to determine if this approach is appropriate for other cochlear implant devices.

Speech coding strategy, frequency boundary assignment table, and speech processor program minimum and maximum stimulation levels are parameters of the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System whose selection affects speech recognition performance in adults and children. Research studies show that speech recognition is significantly better with (1) the Spectral Peak than with the Multipeak speech coding strategy and (2) frequency boundary assignment Table 7 than with Table 9 in an individual's speech processor program (MAP). Minimum and maximum stimulation levels in this MAP are based on psychophysical measurements on each electrode but often need to be modified for optimum use in everyday life. Many children and adults have increases, decreases, or fluctuations in electrical hearing that require changes in the MAP minimum and maximum levels to maintain their ability to recognize speech and other sounds.

Ten postlinguistically deaf adults who used the Nucleus Cochlear Implant System and SPEAK speech coding strategy responded to vowels, consonants, words, and sentences presented sound-only at 70, 60, and 50 dB sound-pressure level. Highest group mean scores were at a raised-to-loud level of 70 dB for consonants (73%), words (44%), and sentences (87%); the highest score for vowels (70%) was at a conversational level of 60 dB. Lowest group mean scores were at a soft level of 50 dB for vowels (56%), consonants (47%), words (10%), and sentences (29%); all except subject 7 had some open-set speech recognition at this level. For the conversational level (60 dB), group mean scores for sentences and words were 72% and 29%, respectively. With this performance and sound-pressure level, it was observed that these subjects communicated successfully in a variety of listening situations. Given these subjects' speech recognition scores at 60 dB and the fact that 70 dB does not simulate the vocal effort used in everyday speaking situations, it is suggested that cochlear implant candidates and implantees be evaluated with speech tests presented at 60 dB instead of the customary 70 dB sound-pressure level to simulate benefit provided by implants in everyday life. Analysis of individuals' scores at the three levels for the four speech materials revealed different patterns of speech recognition among subjects (e.g., subjects 1 and 5). Future research on the relation between stimuli, sound processing, and subjects' responses associated with these different patterns may provide guidelines to select parameter values with which to map incoming sound onto an individual's electrical dynamic range between threshold and maximum acceptable loudness level to improve speech recognition.

The Spectra 22 Speech Processor and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech-coding strategy provide Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant (Cochlear, Corp., Englewood, Colo.) users with a better understanding of speech than the previous Mini Speech Processor and Multipeak (MPEAK) speech-coding strategy. On the NU-6 Monosyllabic Word Test, subjects scored 13% higher for words and 14% higher for phonemes with the SPEAK strategy than with the MPEAK strategy. On the Connected Speech Test and the CID Everyday Sentence Test, subjects scored 32% and 37% higher, respectively, with SPEAK than with MPEAK.

Two stimulus paradigms and two presentation methods were combined to form three procedures (keyboard, knob, and ascending loudness judgments with knob [ALJK]) to obtain detection thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs) from 11 adults with the Nucleus cochlear implant. Thresholds at which subjects correctly counted the number of stimulus bursts also were obtained. Keyboard detection thresholds were higher (Scheffé, p = .01) than knob and ALJK detection thresholds. Counted thresholds were obtained most efficiently by using keyboard detection thresholds as the initial level for testing. Keyboard MALs were highest, knob MALs intermediate, and ALJK MALs lowest (Scheffé, p = .001). MALs were obtained most efficiently with the ALJK procedure. Implications of these results for clinical practice are discussed.

The authors describe the therapy and performance of a prelinguistically deaf adult using a multi-electrode, intracochlear implant. The post-operative test results show that this patient receives greater benefit with the cochlear implant than he received with a hearing aid.

Seven postlinguistically deaf adults implanted with the Nucleus Multi-Electrode Cochlear Implant participated in an evaluation of speech perception performance with three speech processors: the Wearable Speech Process (WSP III), a prototype of the Mini Speech Processor, and the Mini Speech Processor. The first experiment was performed with the prototype and Wearable Speech Processor both programmed using the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. The second experiment compared performance with the Mini Speech Processor programmed with the Multi-Peak speech coding strategy and the Wearable Speech Processor programmed with the F0F1F2 speech coding strategy. Performance was evaluated in the sound-only condition using recorded speech tests presented in quiet and in noise. Questionnaires and informal reports provided information about use in everyday life. In experiment I, there was no significant difference in performance using the Wearable Speech Processor and prototype on any of the tests. Nevertheless, six out of seven subjects preferred the prototype for use in everyday life. In experiment II, performance on open-set tests in quiet and noise was significantly higher with the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) than with the Wearable Speech Processor. Subjects reported an increase in their ability to communicate with other people using the Mini Speech Processor (Multi-Peak speech coding strategy) compared with the Wearable Speech Processor in everyday life.

Four postlinguistically deaf adults were evaluated presurgically with a one- or two-channel vibrotactile aid and postsurgically with a multichannel, multielectrode, intracochlear implant. Although the vibrotactile aid provided awareness of sound and enhanced flow of conversation, benefit to lipreading was small on videotaped tests and speech tracking. Scores on recorded, sound-only speech tests were not significantly above chance except in discrimination of noise from voice. With the cochlear implant, benefit to lipreading was significantly greater than with the vibrotactile aid, and scores on sound-only tests were significantly above chance. Communication was markedly better with the implant than with the vibrotactile aid. In counseling those who get no benefit from a hearing aid, the results of this study provide data on the amount of benefit one- or two-channel vibrotactile aids provide postlinguistically deaf adults who are subsequently implanted.