Search

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the audiological outcomes of cochlear reimplantation with those of the first cochlear implant (CI)., Design: A retrospective analysis was performed on the data of all CI recipients who received the first CI at the age of 8 years or above and who were subsequently reimplanted on the same side. All participants who received their first implant after January 1, 2000, and who were reimplanted before January 1, 2021, were included. CI recipients who were unable to perform an open-set of Flemish monosyllable speech audiometry were excluded. The participants' clinical files were reviewed in terms of the cause of hearing loss, age at the first and second implantation, device types, the time between the first and second surgery, speech reception scores before and after reimplantation, and the reason for reimplantation., Results: Reimplantation was due to device failure in 19 out of 22 patients, performance decrement in two patients, and medical reasons in one patient. The interval between the first and second CI ranged from 8 to 218 mo. Within-subject analysis showed the speech reception performance with the second CI to be significantly better than that with the first CI at all follow-up time points, with average within-patient gains of 17%, 16%, 12%, and 15% at 3 mo, 9 mo, 3 years, and the highest scores achieved, respectively. After reimplantation, the performance was better than the last results before reimplantation, and this was significant from 9 mo after reimplantation onwards. Three patients (14%) had a performance degradation with the second CI, which was probably owing to (1) difficulties in reimplantation surgery leading to a reduced number of active channels, (2) insufficient experience with the second CI as the reimplantation has been performed recently, and (3) advanced fenestral and retrofenestral otosclerosis., Conclusions: The present study shows that speech reception performance after reimplantation yields faster and better results than the first implant. It takes a couple of months to get better results than those before the reimplantation. Only in a minority of participants, a small deterioration may be observed. It seems that soft failures in the absence of measurable technical abnormalities call for caution with regard to reimplantation., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The newest Nucleus CI processor, the CP900, has two new options to improve speech-in-noise perception: (1) use of an adaptive directional microphone (SCAN mode) and (2) wireless connection to MiniMic1 and MiniMic2 wireless remote microphones., Design: An analysis was made of the absolute and relative benefits of these technologies in a real-world mimicking test situation. Speech perception was tested using an adaptive speech-in-noise test (sentences-in-babble noise). In session A, SRTs were measured in three conditions: (1) Clinical Map, (2) SCAN and (3) MiniMic1. Each was assessed for three distances between speakers and CI recipient: 1 m, 2 m and 3 m. In session B, the benefit of the use of MiniMic2 was compared to benefit of MiniMic1 at 3 m., Study Sample: A group of 13 adult CP900 recipients participated., Results: SCAN and MiniMic1 improved performance compared to the standard microphone with a median improvement in SRT of 2.7-3.9 dB for SCAN at 1 m and 3 m, respectively, and 4.7-10.9 dB for the MiniMic1. MiniMic1 improvements were significant. MiniMic2 showed an improvement in SRT of 22.2 dB compared to 10.0 dB for MiniMic1 (3 m)., Conclusions: Digital wireless transmission systems (i.e. MiniMic) offer a statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech perception in challenging, realistic listening conditions.

Objective: The software application FOX ('Fitting to Outcome eXpert') is an intelligent agent to assist in the programing of cochlear implant (CI) processors. The current version utilizes a mixture of deterministic and probabilistic logic which is able to improve over time through a learning effect. This study aimed at assessing whether this learning capacity yields measurable improvements in speech understanding., Methods: A retrospective study was performed on 25 consecutive CI recipients with a median CI use experience of 10 years who came for their annual CI follow-up fitting session. All subjects were assessed by means of speech audiometry with open set monosyllables at 40, 55, 70, and 85 dB SPL in quiet with their home MAP. Other psychoacoustic tests were executed depending on the audiologist's clinical judgment. The home MAP and the corresponding test results were entered into FOX. If FOX suggested to make MAP changes, they were implemented and another speech audiometry was performed with the new MAP., Results: FOX suggested MAP changes in 21 subjects (84%). The within-subject comparison showed a significant median improvement of 10, 3, 1, and 7% at 40, 55, 70, and 85 dB SPL, respectively. All but two subjects showed an instantaneous improvement in their mean speech audiometric score., Discussion: Persons with long-term CI use, who received a FOX-assisted CI fitting at least 6 months ago, display improved speech understanding after MAP modifications, as recommended by the current version of FOX. This can be explained only by intrinsic improvements in FOX's algorithms, as they have resulted from learning. This learning is an inherent feature of artificial intelligence and it may yield measurable benefit in speech understanding even in long-term CI recipients.

Roger is a digital adaptive multi-channel remote microphone technology that wirelessly transmits a speaker's voice directly to a hearing instrument or cochlear implant sound processor. Frequency hopping between channels, in combination with repeated broadcast, avoids interference issues that have limited earlier generation FM systems. This study evaluated the benefit of the Roger Pen transmitter microphone in a multiple talker network (MTN) for cochlear implant users in a simulated noisy conversation setting. Twelve post-lingually deafened adult Advanced Bionics CII/HiRes 90K recipients were recruited. Subjects used a Naida CI Q70 processor with integrated Roger 17 receiver. The test environment simulated four people having a meal in a noisy restaurant, one the CI user (listener), and three companions (talkers) talking non-simultaneously in a diffuse field of multi-talker babble. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were determined without the Roger Pen, with one Roger Pen, and with three Roger Pens in an MTN. Using three Roger Pens in an MTN improved the SRT by 14.8 dB over using no Roger Pen, and by 13.1 dB over using a single Roger Pen (p < 0.0001). The Roger Pen in an MTN provided statistically and clinically significant improvement in speech perception in noise for Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients. The integrated Roger 17 receiver made it easy for users of the Naida CI Q70 processor to take advantage of the Roger system. The listening advantage and ease of use should encourage more clinicians to recommend and fit Roger in adult cochlear implant patients.

In speech audiometric testing, hearing performance is typically measured by calculating the number of correct repetitions of a speech stimulus. We investigate to what extent the repetition accuracy of Dutch speech stimuli presented against a background noise is influenced by nonauditory processes. We show that variation in verbal repetition accuracy is partially explained by morpholexical and syntactic features of the target language. Verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, determiners, and pronouns yield significantly lower correct repetitions than nouns, adjectives, or adverbs. The reduced repetition performance for verbs and function words is probably best explained by the similarities in the perceptual nature of verbal morphology and function words in Dutch. For sentences, an overall negative effect of syntactic complexity on speech repetition accuracy was found. The lowest number of correct repetitions was obtained with passive sentences, reflecting the cognitive cost of processing a noncanonical sentence structure. Taken together, these findings may have important implications for the audiological practice. In combination with hearing loss, linguistic complexity may increase the cognitive demands to process sentences in noise, leading to suboptimal functional hearing in day-to-day listening situations. Using test sentences with varying degrees of syntactic complexity may therefore provide useful information to measure functional hearing benefits.

Objective: To assess the auditory performance of Digisonic(®) cochlear implant users with electric stimulation (ES) and electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) with special attention to the processing of low-frequency temporal fine structure., Method: Six patients implanted with a Digisonic(®) SP implant and showing low-frequency residual hearing were fitted with the Zebra(®) speech processor providing both electric and acoustic stimulation. Assessment consisted of monosyllabic speech identification tests in quiet and in noise at different presentation levels, and a pitch discrimination task using harmonic and disharmonic intonating complex sounds ( Vaerenberg et al., 2011 ). These tests investigate place and time coding through pitch discrimination. All tasks were performed with ES only and with EAS., Results: Speech results in noise showed significant improvement with EAS when compared to ES. Whereas EAS did not yield better results in the harmonic intonation test, the improvements in the disharmonic intonation test were remarkable, suggesting better coding of pitch cues requiring phase locking., Discussion: These results suggest that patients with residual hearing in the low-frequency range still have good phase-locking capacities, allowing them to process fine temporal information. ES relies mainly on place coding but provides poor low-frequency temporal coding, whereas EAS also provides temporal coding in the low-frequency range. Patients with residual phase-locking capacities can make use of these cues.

Objectives: The newest CI processor from MED-EL company, the SONNET, has two new directional microphone settings. Besides the Omnidirectional microphone mode, it has the possibility to switch to Natural or Adaptive directionality. Both new modes favour perception of sound coming from a front-facing direction compared to sounds from sources at alternate azimuths. Natural directionality mimics the pinna effect of the normal external ear. Design: We undertook to verify the effect of these options in vivo by means of clinical audiological tests. Speech reception thresholds were successively measured for a variety of speech presentation azimuths while keeping the noise azimuths constant. Complete 'Speech Reception Threshold (SRT)-Polar-Plots' were obtained from these data for the Omnidirectional and Natural directionality modes of the SONNET. In addition, one 'SRT-point' was also measured in the 'Adaptive' mode for speech coming from 45° azimuth. Study sample: A group of 13 adult CI recipients participated. Only one of these subjects had previous experience with the SONNET processor. Results: Complete 'SRT-Polar-Plots' could be measured in Natural and Omnidirectional modes in CI recipients within an acceptable timeframe. The pinna-following directionality for Natural mode could be confirmed. Median SRT in noise for speech coming from the 45° azimuth speaker was -5.6 dB SNR for Omnidirectional, -9.1 dB SNR for Natural and -12.8 dB SNR for Adaptive microphone. Natural and Adaptive significantly improved performance compared to Omnidirectional mode at this optimal azimuth of 45° with a median improvement in SRT of 3.5 and 7.2 dB respectively. Conclusions: A novel audiological method, 'SRT-Polar-Plot', was developed and described. Significant directionality benefits for Natural and Adaptive mode were confirmed in vivo using this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To evaluate the possible impact of 'Fitting to Outcomes eXpert (FOX®)' on cochlear implant (CI) fitting in a clinic with extensive experience of fitting a range of CI systems, as a way to assess whether a software tool such as FOX is able to complement standard clinical procedures. Methods Ten adult post-lingually deafened and unilateral long-term users of the Advanced BionicsTM CI system (Clarion CII or HiRes 90KTM) underwent speech perception assessment with their current clinical program. One cycle 'iteration' of FOX optimization was performed and the program adjusted accordingly. After a month of using both clinical and FOX programs, a second iteration of FOX optimization was performed. Following this, the assessments were repeated without further acclimatization. Results FOX prescribed programming modifications in all subjects. Soundfield-aided thresholds were significantly lower for FOX than the clinical program. Group speech scores in noise were not significantly different between the two programs but three individual subjects had improved speech scores with the FOX MAP, two had worse speech scores, and five were the same. Conclusion FOX provided a standardized approach to fitting based on outcome measures rather than comfort alone. The results indicated that for this group of well-fitted patients, FOX improved outcomes in some individuals. There were significant changes, both better and worse, in individual speech perception scores but median scores remained unchanged. Soundfield-aided thresholds were significantly improved for the FOX group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the auditory performance of Digisonic® cochlear implant users with electric stimulation (ES) and electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) with special attention to the processing of low-frequency temporal fine structure. Method Six patients implanted with a Digisonic® SP implant and showing low-frequency residual hearing were fitted with the Zebra® speech processor providing both electric and acoustic stimulation. Assessment consisted of monosyllabic speech identification tests in quiet and in noise at different presentation levels, and a pitch discrimination task using harmonic and disharmonic intonating complex sounds ( Vaerenberg et al., 2011). These tests investigate place and time coding through pitch discrimination. All tasks were performed with ES only and with EAS. Results Speech results in noise showed significant improvement with EAS when compared to ES. Whereas EAS did not yield better results in the harmonic intonation test, the improvements in the disharmonic intonation test were remarkable, suggesting better coding of pitch cues requiring phase locking. Discussion These results suggest that patients with residual hearing in the low-frequency range still have good phase-locking capacities, allowing them to process fine temporal information. ES relies mainly on place coding but provides poor low-frequency temporal coding, whereas EAS also provides temporal coding in the low-frequency range. Patients with residual phase-locking capacities can make use of these cues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Audiology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years there has been an increasing percentage of cochlear implant (CI) users who have usable residual hearing in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear, typically aided by acoustic amplification. This raises the issue of the extent to which the signal presented through the cochlear implant may influence how listeners process information in the acoustically stimulated ear. This multicenter retrospective study examined pre- to postoperative changes in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear, the implanted ear, and both together. Results in the latter two conditions showed the expected increases, but speech perception in the nonimplanted ear showed a modest yet meaningful decrease that could not be completely explained by changes in unaided thresholds, hearing aid malfunction, or several other demographic variables. Decreases in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear were more likely in individuals who had better levels of speech perception in the implanted ear, and in those who had better speech perception in the implanted than in the nonimplanted ear. This raises the possibility that, in some cases, bimodal listeners may rely on the higher quality signal provided by the implant and may disregard or even neglect the input provided by the nonimplanted ear. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]