Search

Purpose The goal of this work was to evaluate the low-frequency hearing preservation of long electrode array cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Method Twenty-five participants presented with an unaided hearing threshold of ≤ 80 dB HL at 125 Hz pre-operatively in the ear to be implanted. Participants were implanted with a long (31.5-mm) electrode array. The unaided hearing threshold at 125 Hz was compared between the preoperative and postoperative intervals (i.e., initial CI activation, and 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after activation). Results Eight participants maintained an unaided hearing threshold of ≤ 80 dB HL at 125 Hz postoperatively. The majority ( n = 5) demonstrated aidable low-frequency hearing at initial activation, whereas 3 other participants experienced an improvement in unaided low-frequency hearing thresholds at subsequent intervals. Conclusions CI recipients can retain residual hearing sensitivity with fully inserted long electrode arrays, and low-frequency hearing thresholds may improve during the postoperative period. Therefore, unaided hearing thresholds obtained within the initial weeks after surgery may not reflect later hearing sensitivity. Routine measurement of postoperative unaided hearing thresholds-even for patients who did not demonstrate aidable hearing thresholds initially after cochlear implantation-will identify CI recipients who may benefit from electric-acoustic stimulation. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.11356637.

Objective: Hearing preservation after cochlear implantation allows for fitting of acoustic and cochlear implant technologies in the same ear, known as Electric-Acoustic Stimulation (EAS). Cochlear implant recipients with EAS who experience an internal device failure face the additional risk of residual hearing loss during reimplantation. This report reviews the case of an EAS recipient with long-term hearing preservation and significant benefit who experienced a device failure and underwent cochlear reimplantation., Patient: Case study who presented with an internal device failure after nearly 10 years of hearing preservation and significant benefit with an EAS device., Intervention: Reimplantation with hearing preservation electrode array., Main Outcome Measures: Unaided residual hearing and aided speech perception with an EAS device using CNC words in quiet and CUNY sentences in noise., Results: Low-frequency thresholds were similar when comparing residual hearing pre- and post-reimplantation. The patient does not use the acoustic portion of the EAS device due to normal low-frequency hearing sensitivity-even after two cochlear implantation procedures. At the 3-month follow-up interval, the patient demonstrated restoration of aided speech perception performance with the EAS device., Conclusions: Hearing preservation can be maintained with long-term use of EAS devices. Those with preserved low-frequency hearing who experience a device failure may maintain hearing preservation after reimplantation. Normal low-frequency hearing thresholds were maintained in the present case, and the patient continued to listen with the EAS device without the acoustic component. EAS recipients may experience rapid restoration in speech perception after reimplantation in the presence of hearing preservation.

Objective: Assess whether differences in speech perception are observed after exclusive listening experience with high-definition continuous interleaved sampling (HDCIS) versus fine structure processing (FSP) coding strategies., Methods: Subjects were randomly assigned at initial activation of the external speech processor to receive the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy. Frequency filter assignments were consistent across subjects. The speech perception test battery included CNC words in quiet, HINT sentences in quiet and steady noise (+10 dB SNR), AzBio sentences in quiet and a 10-talker babble (+10 dB SNR), and BKB-SIN. Assessment intervals included 1, 3, and 6 months post-activation., Results: Data from 22 subjects (11 with HDCIS and 11 with FSP) were assessed over time. Speech perception performance was not significantly different between groups., Discussion: Speech perception performance was not significantly different after 6 months of listening experience with the HDCIS or FSP coding strategy.

Purpose: The Minimum Speech Test Battery (MSTB) for adults was introduced in 1996 (Nilsson et al., 1996) and subsequently updated in 2011 (Advanced-Bionics et al., 2011). The MSTB has been widely used by clinicians as a guide for cochlear implant (CI) candidacy evaluations and to document post-operative speech recognition performance. Due to changes in candidacy over the past 10 years, a revision to the MSTB was needed. Method: In 2022, the Institute for Cochlear Implant Training (ICIT) recruited a panel of expert CI audiologists to update and revise the MSTB. This panel utilized a modified Delphi consensus process to revise the test battery and to improve its applicability considering recent changes in CI care. Results: This resulted in the MTSB--Version 3 (MSTB-3), which includes test protocols for identifying not only traditional CI candidates but also possible candidates for electric--acoustic stimulation and patients with single-sided deafness and asymmetric hearing loss. The MSTB-3 provides information that supplements the earlier versions of the MSTB, such as recommendations of when to refer patients for a CI, recommended patient-reported outcome measures, considerations regarding the use of cognitive screeners, and sample report templates for clinical documentation of pre- and post-operative care. Electronic versions of test stimuli, along with all the materials described above, will be available to clinicians via the ICIT website (https://www.cochlearimplanttraining.com). Conclusion: The goal of the MSTB-3 is to be an evidence-based test battery that will facilitate a streamlined standard of care for adult CI candidates and recipients that will be widely used by CI clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Three experiments were carried out to evaluate the low-frequency pitch perception of adults with unilateral hearing loss who received a cochlear implant (CI). Method: Participants were recruited from a cohort of CI users with unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing in the contralateral ear. First, low-frequency pitch perception was assessed for the 5 most apical electrodes at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after CI activation using an adaptive pitch-matching task. Participants listened with a coding strategy that presents low-frequency temporal fine structure (TFS) and compared the pitch to that of an acoustic target presented to the normal hearing ear. Next, participants listened with an envelope-only, continuous interleaved sampling strategy. Pitch perception was compared between coding strategies to assess the influence of TFS cues on lowfrequency pitch perception. Finally, participants completed a vocal pitch-matching task to corroborate the results obtained with the adaptive pitch-matching task. Results: Pitch matches roughly corresponded to electrode center frequencies (CFs) in the CI map. Adaptive pitch matches exceeded the CF for the most apical electrode, an effect that was larger for continuous interleaved sampling than TFS. Vocal pitch matches were variable but correlated with the CF of the 3 most apical electrodes. There was no evidence that pitch matches changed between the 1- and 12-month intervals. Conclusions: Relatively accurate and asymptotic pitch perception was observed at the 1-month interval, indicating either very rapid acclimatization or the provision of familiar place and rate cues. Early availability of appropriate pitch cues could have played a role in the early improvements in localization and masked speech recognition previously observed in this cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Candidacy criteria for cochlear implantation are expanding to include patients with substantial low-to-mid frequency hearing sensitivity. Postoperative hearing preservation has been achieved in cochlear implant recipients, though with variable outcomes. Previous investigations on postoperative hearing preservation outcomes have evaluated intraoperative procedures. There has been limited review as to whether electric stimulation influences hearing preservation. Purpose: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate whether charge levels associated with electric stimulation influence postoperative hearing preservation within the first year of listening experience. Research Design: Retrospective analysis of unaided residual hearing and charge levels. Study Sample: Twenty-eight cochlear implant recipients with postoperative residual hearing in the operative ear and at least 12 mo of listening experience with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). Data Collection and Analysis: Assessment intervals included initial cochlear implant activation, initial EAS activation, and 3-, 6-, and 12-mo postinitial EAS activation. A masked low-frequency bone-conduction (BC) pure-tone average (PTA) was calculated for all participants at each assessment interval. Charge levels for each electrode were determined using the most comfortable loudness level and pulse width values. Charge levels associated with different regions of the electrode array were compared to the change in the low-frequency BC PTA between two consecutive intervals. Results: Charge levels had little to no association with the postoperative change in low-frequency BC PTA within the first year of listening experience. Conclusions: Electric charge levels do not appear to be reliably related to the subsequent loss of residual low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear within the first year of EAS listening experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]