Stable Longitudinal Performance of Adult Cochlear Implant Users for More Than 10 Years

Speech Understanding and Subjective Listening Effort in Noise With Different OTEs and Sound Processing Technologies

OBJECTIVE

To determine speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise and subjective listening effort (LE) in cochlear implant (CI) recipients for application of three sound processing (SP) technologies with two off-the-ear (OTE) CI sound processors, a fixed moderately directional microphone (Standard), an adaptive directional microphone (Beam), and the spatial noise-reduction setting ForwardFocus, with the Kanso 2 (OTE2), and Beam with the Kanso (OTE1).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective repeated measures, within-subject design.

SETTING

Single tertiary-referral center.

PATIENTS

Twenty CI recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

SRTs were assessed in two spatial configurations with frontal speech and noise from 90-180-270 degrees (S0N90-180-270) or from the CI side (S0NCI). SRTs were obtained for sentences of the Oldenburg sentence test presented in International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) noise ICRA5-250. LE for speech understanding in noise was evaluated in S0N90-180-270 and assessed in effort scale categorical units (ESCUs) by using Adaptive Categorical Listening Effort Scaling (ACALES). LEs at 5-dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) were calculated from fitted psychometric curves.

RESULTS

With OTE2 in S0N90-180-270, SRT with ForwardFocus (-4.28 dB SNR) was better than with Beam (-3.13 dB SNR) and Standard (0.43 dB SNR). ForwardFocus showed lower LE5dB (2.61 ESCU) compared with Beam (4.60 ESCU) and Standard (5.32 ESCU). In a comparison of both OTEs in S0N90-180-270 regarding best-performing SP technology, ForwardFocus with OTE2 yielded a better SRT and better LE5dB than Beam with OTE1 (SRT: -1.70 dB SNR; LE5dB: 4.00 ESCU). With OTE2 in S0NCI, SRT was improved with ForwardFocus (-2.78 dB SNR) compared with Beam (-1.23 dB SNR) and Standard (1.83 dB SNR).

CONCLUSION

With respect to SP technology and OTE, CI recipients experience best SRT and lowest LE in S0N90-180-270 when using ForwardFocus with OTE2. ACALES is feasible for assessing subjective LE in CI recipients.

Longitudinal Auditory Benefit for Elderly Patients After Cochlear Implant for Bilateral Hearing Loss, Including Those Meeting Expanded Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Criteria

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of patient age on longitudinal speech understanding outcomes after cochlear implantation (CI) in bilateral hearing loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

One thousand one hundred five adult patients with bilateral hearing loss receiving a unilateral CI between 1987 and 2022InterventionsNone.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postoperative speech recognition outcomes, including AzBio sentences, consonant-nucleus-consonant word, and Hearing in Noise Test in quiet were analyzed at short-term (<2 yr), medium-term (2-8 y), and long-term (>8 yr) term postoperative intervals.

RESULTS

Eighty-six very elderly (>80 yr), 409 elderly (65-80 yr), and 709 nonelderly (18-65 yr) patients were included. Short-term postoperative AzBio scores demonstrated similar magnitude of improvement relative to preoperative scores in the very elderly (47.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 28.9-66.4), elderly (49.0; 95% CI, 39.2-58.8), and nonelderly (47.9; 95% CI, 35.4-60.4). Scores for those older than 80 years remained stable after 2 years after implant, but in those 80 years or younger, scores continued to improve for up to 8 years (elderly: 6.2 [95% CI, 1.5-12.4]; nonelderly: 9.9 [95% CI, 2.1-17.7]) after implantation. Similar patterns were observed for consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores. Across all age cohorts, patients with preoperative Hearing in Noise Test scores between 40 and 60% had similar scores to those with preoperative scores of less than 40%, at short-term (82.4, 78.9; 95% CI, -23.1 to 10.0), medium-term (77.2, 83.9; 95% CI, -15.4 to 8.2), or long-term (73.4, 71.2; 95% CI, -18.2 to 12.2) follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients older than 80 years gain significant and sustained auditory benefit after CI, including those meeting expanded Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service criteria for implantation. Patients younger than 80 years demonstrated continued improvement over longer periods than older patients, suggesting a role of central plasticity in mediating CI outcomes as a function of age.

Longitudinal Speech Recognition Changes After Cochlear Implant: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine patterns of change and plateau in speech recognition scores in postlingually hearing impaired adult cochlear implant recipients. The study also examines variations in change patterns for different speech materials and testing conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Used systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Articles in English reporting speech recognition scores of adults with postlingual hearing loss at pre-implantation and at least two post-implantation time points were included. Statistically significant changes were determined by meta-analysis and the 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 22 articles representing 1954 patients were included. Meta-analysis of mean difference demonstrated significant improvements in speech recognition score for words in quiet (37.4%; 95% confidence interval [34.7%, 40.7%]), sentences in quiet (49.4%; 95% confidence interval [44.9%, 53.9%]), and sentences in noise (30.8%; 95% confidence interval [25.2%, 36.4%]) from pre-op to 3 months. Scores continued to increase from 3 to 12 months but did not reach significance. Similarly, significant improvements from pre-op to 3 months were observed for consonant nucleus consonant (CNC) words in quiet (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [33.8%, 40.4%]), hearing in noise test (HINT) sentences in quiet (46.5%; 95% confidence interval [37.0%, 56.0%]), AzBio sentences in quiet (45.9%; 95% confidence interval [44.2%, 47.5%]), and AzBio sentences in noise (26.4%; 95% confidence interval [18.6%, 34.2%]). HINT sentences in noise demonstrated improvement from pre-op to 3 months (35.1%; 95% confidence interval [30.0%, 40.3%]) and from 3 to 12 months (15.5%; 95% confidence interval [7.2%, 23.8%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Mean speech recognition scores demonstrate significant improvement within the first 3 months, with no further statistically significant improvement after 3 months. However, large individual variation should be expected and future research is needed to explain the sources of these individual differences. Laryngoscope, 2022.

CI decision making and expectations by older adults

OBJECTIVE

To document and analyze the cochlear implant (CI) decision-making process of hearing-impaired older adults. The aim of this study is to assess what support could be helpful during this process in order to improve care delivery.

METHODS

32 older adult CI recipients (≥ 60 years) with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss were interviewed about their CI decision-making process 3-12 months after obtaining their first CI.

RESULTS

Minimal information was provided to CI candidates by hearing aid acousticians or patient associations. High to very high expectations were reported by patients concerning issues beyond hearing improvement per se. Even though not all expectations were fulfilled by the CI, nearly all recipients who used an implant for at least six months would recommend a CI to others.

DISCUSSION

We identified an opportunity for those professionals to play a greater role in supporting older CI candidates during the decision-making process. It is desirable to establish a comprehensive network of hearing care professionals to collaborate with CI clinics.

CONCLUSION

In order to support older patients adequately in deciding about CI, intensive training should be offered to hearing care professionals in order to provide realistic expectations and reduce fear and uncertainty about the implantation process. These topics need to be communicated in a professional manner and adapted to the candidate's age and personality.

Bilateral Cochlear Implantation in Children: Long-Term Outcome in the Adult Population With Special Emphasis on the Bilateral Benefit

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation in adults, who had been implanted being a child under the age of 10 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective data analysis.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center with a large cochlear implant program.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Speech understanding in the Freiburg monosyllabic words in quiet and the HSM sentence test in quiet and in background noise.

PATIENTS

Seventy-seven bilaterally cochlear implantation implanted adults.

RESULTS

Bilateral cochlear implantation in children under the age of 10 years results in a significant benefit in speech comprehension in adulthood. In addition, a dependency regarding the time between the implantations and speech intelligibility was found.

CONCLUSION

The results emphasize the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation with a short interval between the operations in young children not only during formative years but also in adulthood.

Longitudinal outcomes of cochlear implantation and bimodal hearing in a large group of adults: A multicenter clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate speech understanding outcomes in a large adult cohort who demonstrated poor hearing performance with well fit hearing aids in the unilateral and bilateral or bimodal listening conditions at preimplant, 3-, 6- and 12-months.

SUBJECTS

Post-linguistically deafened adults (N = 100) with bilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss and limited functional benefit from well fit bilateral hearing aids.

METHOD

A multicenter, prospective, repeated-measures, within-subject controlled study was conducted. All subjects were implanted with a Slim Modiolar cochlear implant and were required to use bimodal stimulation (cochlear implant and hearing aid in contralateral ear) for 6-months postimplant and optionally to 12-months. Evaluations included: speech recognition for monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words in quiet; AzBio sentences in coincident noise (at +5 and +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)), in implant ear and bimodal conditions. All speech tests were performed at preimplant and 6-months postimplant for primary endpoint outcomes, and a subset of speech tests at 3- and 12-months.

RESULTS

In the implant ear only, at 3-, 6- and 12-months postimplant, 84%, 93% and 97% of subjects respectively, demonstrated significantly improved monosyllabic word scores in quiet compared to preimplant hearing aid scores (p < 0.05). At 12-months, a mean gain of 51% points, for monosyllabic words and 32% points for sentences in noise was observed (p < 0.001). In the bimodal condition, at 6-months postimplant, 87% of subjects demonstrated significantly improved monosyllabic word scores in quiet compared to preimplant bilateral hearing aid scores (p < 0.05). At 6-months, a mean gain of 40% points, for monosyllabic words was observed (p < 0.001). Speech scores for sentences in noise significantly improved for the bimodal condition at 6- and 12-months (p < 0.001). In addition to speech scores for the implanted ear, bimodal condition scores demonstrated further increments, especially for sentences in noise at 6- and 12-months (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results support that bimodal hearing is superior to bilateral hearing aids in this cohort of bilateral moderate-to-profound adult hearing aid users. Our study cohort demonstrated significant improvements for speech scores for the cochlear implant (CI) ear only and bimodal conditions compared to the baseline preimplant unilateral and bilateral hearing aid conditions respectively. The greatest gain in performance was in the first three months of device use with incremental improvement through 12 months. These findings indicate that when hearing aids fit to National Acoustics Laboratory (NAL-1) targets do not provide the necessary audibility needed for speech recognition, referral for CI-candidacy evaluation is strongly recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clintrial.govNCT03007472. Registered 01/02/2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03007472?term=clinical+evaluation+of+the+nucleus+CI532&draw=2&rank=2.

Effectiveness of Phantom Stimulation in Shifting the Pitch Percept in Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVES

Phantom electrode stimulation was developed for cochlear implant (CI) systems to provide a lower pitch percept by stimulating more apical regions of the cochlea, without inserting the electrode array deeper into the cochlea. Phantom stimulation involves simultaneously stimulating a primary and a compensating electrode with opposite polarity, thereby shifting the electrical field toward the apex and eliciting a lower pitch percept. The current study compared the effect sizes (in shifts of place of excitation) of multiple phantom configurations by matching the perceived pitch with phantom stimulation to that perceived with monopolar stimulation. Additionally, the effects of electrode location, type of electrode array, and stimulus level on the perceived pitch were investigated.

DESIGN

Fifteen adult advanced bionics CI users participated in this study, which included four experiments to eventually measure the shifts in place of excitation with five different phantom configurations. The proportions of current delivered to the compensating electrode, expressed as σ, were 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 for the symmetrical biphasic pulses (SBC0.5, SBC0.6, SBC0.7, and SBC0.8) and 0.75 for the pseudomonophasic pulse shape (PSA0.75). A pitch discrimination experiment was first completed to determine which basal and apical electrode contacts should be used for the subsequent experiments. An extensive loudness balancing experiment followed where both the threshold level (T-level) and most comfortable level (M-level) were determined to enable testing at multiple levels of the dynamic range. A pitch matching experiment was then performed to estimate the shift in place of excitation at the chosen electrode contacts. These rough shifts were then used in the subsequent experiment, where the shifts in place of excitation were determined more accurately.

RESULTS

Reliable data were obtained from 20 electrode contacts. The average shifts were 0.39, 0.53, 0.64, 0.76, and 0.53 electrode contacts toward the apex for SBC0.5, SBC0.6, SBC0.7, SBC0.8, and PSA0.75, respectively. When only the best configurations per electrode contact were included, the average shift in place of excitation was 0.92 electrode contacts (range: 0.25 to 2.0). While PSA0.75 leads to equal results as the SBC configurations in the apex, it did not result in a significant shift at the base. The shift in place of excitation was significantly larger at the apex and with lateral wall electrode contacts. The stimulus level did not affect the shift.

CONCLUSIONS

Phantom stimulation results in significant shifts in place of excitation, especially at the apical part of the electrode array. The phantom configuration that leads to the largest shift in place of excitation differs between subjects. Therefore, the settings of the phantom electrode should be individualized so that the phantom stimulation is optimized for each CI user. The real added value to the sound quality needs to be established in a take-home trial.