This study investigated the speech perception of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with measurable preoperative ipsilateral speech perception. These data should support improved individual counselling of CI candidates. Pre- and postoperative speech audiometric parameters were analyzed, including maximum score for phonemically balanced words (PBmax) and monosyllabic score at a normal conversational level of 65 dBSPL, with hearing aids one hand and CI on the other. Data of 284 experienced adult CI wearers were grouped and evaluated in terms of preoperative PBmax. The preoperative PBmax was exceeded by the postoperative monosyllabic score in 96% of cases. The overall median postoperative score was 72.5%. The groups with preoperative PBmax > 0% showed significantly better speech perception scores with CI than the group with PBmax = 0%. Median improvement compared to the preoperative monosyllabic score with hearing aids was 65 percentage points, independent of preoperative PBmax. The preoperatively measured PBmax may be used as a predictor for the minimum speech perception obtained with CI. This is of high clinical relevance for CI candidates with a PBmax above zero.

/pdf/maximum-preimplantation-monosyllabic-score-as-predictor-of-14untzq9u6.pdf

Maximum preimplantation monosyllabic score as predictor of cochlear implant outcome

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS To determine the improvement in word recognition score (WRS65 ) after cochlear implant (CI) surgery in hearing aid (HA) users with preoperative hearing threshold ≤80 dB HL and inadequate speech recognition scores with HA. Secondarily, to identify predictive factors for WRS65 with a CI (WRS65 [CI]) 6 months after surgery, derived from the standard German CI preoperative assessment. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective chart review. METHODS Retrospective review of all adult patients who received a Nucleus cochlear implant in the ear, nose, and throat department of the University Hospital of Erlangen between January 2010 and April 2019. The inclusion criteria were a preoperative hearing threshold ≤80 dB HL in the ear to receive the implantation, German as the native language, and at least 6 months postimplantation care at our center. RESULTS The inclusion criteria were met by 128 patients. All but two patients (98.4%) showed a significant improvement, WRS65 (CI) versus WRS65 with an (HA) (WRS65 [HA]), of at least 15 percentage points (pp). The median improvement was 55 pp with a median WRS65 (CI) of 70%. Three preoperative audiometric measures, the maximum word recognition score, age at implantation, and WRS65 (HA) were identified as predictive factors for WRS65 (CI). For three-quarters of the CI recipients, the score was not poorer than 12 pp below the predicted WRS65 (CI). CONCLUSIONS For patients with a hearing loss ≤80 dB HL, cochlear implantation should be considered when speech perception with an HA is insufficient. The prediction model can support counseling in this patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E940-E945, 2021.

Cochlear Implantation in Candidates With Moderate‐to‐Severe Hearing Loss and Poor Speech Perception

This study compared spatial speech-in-noise performance in two cochlear implant (CI) patient groups: bimodal listeners, who use a hearing aid contralaterally to support their impaired acoustic hearing, and listeners with contralateral normal hearing, i.e., who were single-sided deaf before implantation. Using a laboratory setting that controls for head movements and that simulates spatial acoustic scenes, speech reception thresholds were measured for frontal speech-in-stationary noise from the front, the left, or the right side. Spatial release from masking (SRM) was then extracted from speech reception thresholds for monaural and binaural listening. SRM was found to be significantly lower in bimodal CI than in CI single-sided deaf listeners. Within each listener group, the SRM extracted from monaural listening did not differ from the SRM extracted from binaural listening. In contrast, a normal-hearing control group showed a significant improvement in SRM when using two ears in comparison to one. Neither CI group showed a binaural summation effect; that is, their performance was not improved by using two devices instead of the best monaural device in each spatial scenario. The results confirm a "listening with the better ear" strategy in the two CI patient groups, where patients benefited from using two ears/devices instead of one by selectively attending to the better one. Which one is the better ear, however, depends on the spatial scenario and on the individual configuration of hearing loss.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2331216519858311

Spatial Speech-in-Noise Performance in Bimodal and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users.

Cochlear implants (CIs) are the state-of-the-art therapy for individuals with severe to profound hearing loss, providing them with good functional hearing. Nevertheless, speech understanding in background noise remains a significant challenge. The purposes of this study were to: (1) conduct a novel within-study comparison of speech-in-noise performance across ages in different populations of CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners using an adaptive sentence-in-noise test, and (2) examine the relative contribution of sensory information and cognitive-linguistic factors to performance. Forty CI users (mean age 20 years) were divided into "early-implanted" 6 years (n = 11), all prelingually deafened, and "progressively deafened" (n = 13). The control group comprised 136 NH subjects (80 children, 56 adults). Testing included the Hebrew Matrix test, word recognition in quiet, and linguistic and cognitive tests. Results show poorer performance in noise for CI users across populations and ages compared to NH peers, and age at implantation and word recognition in quiet were found to be contributing factors. For those recognizing 50% or more of the words in quiet (n = 27), non-verbal intelligence and receptive vocabulary explained 63% of the variance in noise. This information helps delineate the relative contribution of top-down and bottom-up skills for speech recognition in noise and can help set expectations in CI counseling.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/5/1381/pdf

Listening in Noise Remains a Significant Challenge for Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from Early Deafened and Those with Progressive Hearing Loss Compared to Peers with Normal Hearing

Pitch perception is known to be difficult for individuals with cochlear implant (CI), and adding a hearing aid (HA) in the non-implanted ear is potentially beneficial. The current study aimed to investigate the bimodal benefit for lexical tone recognition in Mandarin-speaking preschoolers using a CI and an HA in opposite ears. The child participants were required to complete tone identification in quiet and in noise with CI + HA in comparison with CI alone. While the bimodal listeners showed confusion between Tone 2 and Tone 3 in recognition, the additional acoustic information from the contralateral HA alleviated confusion between these two tones in quiet. Moreover, significant improvement was demonstrated in the CI + HA condition over the CI alone condition in noise. The bimodal benefit for individual subjects could be predicted by the low-frequency hearing threshold of the non-implanted ear and the duration of bimodal use. The findings support the clinical practice to fit a contralateral HA in the non-implanted ear for the potential benefit in Mandarin tone recognition in CI children. The limitations call for further studies on auditory plasticity on an individual basis to gain insights on the contributing factors to the bimodal benefit or its absence.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/10/4/238/pdf

Bimodal Benefits for Lexical Tone Recognition: An Investigation on Mandarin-speaking Preschoolers with a Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid

Objective: To determine speech perception in quiet and noise of adult cochlear implant listeners retaining a hearing aid contralaterally. Second, to investigate the influence of contralateral heari...

Frank Digeser

Papers

Bimodal benefit for cochlear implant listeners with different grades of hearing loss in the opposite ear