Association of Speech Processor Technology and Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants

BACKGROUND

Patients with a cochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for a new speech processor every 6 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades.

METHODS

Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99 patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4 weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction.

RESULTS

The speech processor upgrade resulted in a significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7 percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dB signal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, a significant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006). A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified a proportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only a small improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

Speech understanding in noise for cochlear implant recipients using a spatial noise reduction setting in an off the ear sound processor with directional microphones

PURPOSE

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients struggle to hear in competing background noise. ForwardFocus is a spatial noise reduction setting from Cochlear Ltd. (Sydney) that can simultaneously attenuate noise from multiple sources behind the listener. This study assessed hearing performance with ForwardFocus in an off-the-ear (OTE) sound processor.

METHOD

Twenty-two experienced adult CI recipients participated. Speech reception data was collected in fixed noise acutely in the clinic. After three to five weeks take home experience, subjective impressions were recorded, and evaluations were conducted for speech reception in quiet and roving noise.

RESULTS

Group mean speech reception thresholds (SRT) were below 0 dB in two spatially-separated noise test conditions when using ForwardFocus in the OTE sound processor. SRT were -8.5 dB (SD 2.9) in 4-talker babble roving in a rear hemi-field (S0Nrearhemi) and -3.9 dB (SD 3.3) in 12-talker babble presented laterally and behind (S0N3). Results in S0N3 were significantly better with ForwardFocus On (p = 0.0018). Subjective ratings with the OTE were comparable to, or better than, with their walk-in BTE or OTE sound processor.

CONCLUSIONS

ForwardFocus provides significant benefits for speech recognition in competing background noise in an OTE sound processor. These results support clinicians in counselling CI recipients on potential sound processor options to consider.

[Value of patient-reported outcome measures for evaluating the benefit of speech processor upgrading in patients with cochlear implants. German version]

BACKGROUND

Patients with a cochlear implant (CI) should be evaluated for a new speech processor every 6 years. The aim of this analysis was to assess the subjective and audiological benefit of upgrades.

METHODS

Speech understanding and subjective benefit were analyzed in 99 patients with the old and the new speech processor after 4 weeks of wearing. Speech understanding was assessed using the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet (FBE) at 65 dB and 80 dB, and the Oldenburg Sentence Test (OLSA) at 65 dB noise with adaptive speech sound level. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) was used to assess subjective hearing impairment, and the Audio Processor Satisfaction Questionnaire (APSQ) was used to assess subjective satisfaction.

RESULTS

The speech processor upgrade resulted in a significant improvement of speech understanding in quiet at 65 dB (mean difference 8.9 ± 25.9 percentage points, p < 0.001) and 80 dB (mean difference 8.1 ± 29.7 percentage points, p < 0.001) and in noise (mean difference 3.2 ± 10.7 dB signal-to-noise ratio [S/N], p = 0.006). Using the APHAB, a significant improvement (mean difference 0.07 ± 0.16, p < 0.001) in hearing impairment was demonstrated in all listening situations. The APSQ showed significantly higher patient satisfaction with the new speech processor (mean difference 0.42 ± 1.26, p = 0.006). A comparative assessment of the benefit based on subjective and speech audiometric results identified a proportion of patients (35-42%) who subjectively benefited from the upgrade but had no measurable benefit based on speech audiometry.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant improvement in audiologically measurable and subjectively reflected speech understanding and patient satisfaction after the upgrade. In patients with only a small improvement in audiologically measurable speech understanding, the subjective benefit should also be assessed with validated measurement instruments in order to justify an upgrade to the payers in the health sector.

The COVID-19 pandemic and upgrades of CI speech processors for children: part II-hearing outcomes

PURPOSE

To gauge the benefits to children of upgrading speech processors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The study involved 297 children, aged from 7.3 to 18.0 years, whose processors were upgraded to either Nucleus 7 or Kanso 2, or to Sonnet 2 or Rondo 3. To document the benefits of the upgrades, a speech-in-noise discrimination test and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were used.

RESULTS

There was a significant benefit from the newer processors in terms of speech discrimination in noise. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) indicated less hearing disability, a higher level of functioning in everyday life situations, and more satisfaction with the new speech processor in social situations.

CONCLUSION

There is a measurable improvement in performance when the devices are upgraded to the new technology.

Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hearing loss is a highly disabling condition. Cochlear implantation is an established remedy if conventional hearing aids have failed to alleviate the level of disability. Unfortunately, cochlear implant (CI) performance varies dramatically. This study aims to examine the effects of duration of deafness (DoD) prior to cochlear implantation and the postoperative duration of implant experience with resulting hearing performance in postlingually deaf patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and two meta-analyses were conducted using the search terms cochlear implant AND duration deafness. Included studies evaluate the correlation between the DoD and auditory performance after cochlear implantation using monosyllabic and sentence tests. Correlation coefficients were determined using Pearson's correlation and Spearman rho.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were identified and included data on cochlear implantations following postlingual deafness and postoperative speech testing of hearing outcomes for 1802 patients. The mean age ranged from 44 to 68 years with a DoD of 0.1 to 77 years. Cochlear implant use varied from 3 months to 14 years of age. Speech perception, which was assessed by sentence and monosyllabic word perception, was negatively correlated with DoD. Subgroup analyses revealed worse outcomes for longer DoD and shorter postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSION

DoD is one of the most important factors to predict speech perception after cochlear implantation in postlingually deaf patients. The meta-analyses revealed a negative correlation between length of auditory deprivation and postoperative sentence and monosyllabic speech perception. Longer DoD seems to lead to worse CI performance, whereas more experience with CI mitigates the effect.