Objective: To clinically evaluate ForwardFocus in noise with experienced Nucleus V R cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Design: Listening performance with ForwardFocus was compared against the best in class directional microphone program (BEAM V R). Speech comprehension was tested with the Oldenburg sentence test with competing signals (stationary, three, six and 18-talker babble) in both co-located and spatially-separated listening environments. Additionally, normal hearing participants were tested monaurally in the same listening environments as a reference and to promote cross-study comparisons between CI clinical study outcomes. Study sample: Post-lingually deaf adult CI recipients (n ¼ 20) who were experienced users of the Nucleus sound processor (Cochlear Limited). Results: Improved speech comprehension was found with the ForwardFocus program compared to the BEAM program in a co-located frontal listening environment for both stationary and fluctuating competing signals. In spatially-separated environments ForwardFocus provided significant speech reception threshold (SRT) improvements of 5.8 dB for three-talker competing signals, respectively. Conclusions: ForwardFocus was shown to significantly improve speech comprehension in a wide range of listening environments. This technology is likely to provide significant improvements in real-world listening for CI recipients, given the clinically relevant performance outcomes in challenging dynamic noise environments, bringing their performance closer to their normal hearing peers.

Objectives In clinical practice, characterization of speech comprehension for cochlear implant (CI) patients is typically administered by a set of suprathreshold measurements in quiet and in noise. This study investigates speech comprehension of the three most recent cochlear implant sound processors; CP810, CP910, and CP1000 (Cochlear Limited). To compare sound processor performance across generations and input dynamic range changes, the state‐of‐the art signal processing technologies available in each sound processor were enabled. Outcomes will be assessed across a range of stimulation intensities, and finally analyzed with respect to normal hearing listeners. Methods In a prospective study, 20 experienced postlingually deafened CI patients who received a Nucleus CI in the ENT department of the University Hospital of SH in Kiel were recruited. Speech comprehension was measured in quiet at 40, 50, and 65 dBSPL with monosyllabic words as well as by speech reception threshold for two‐digit numbers. In noise, speech reception thresholds were measured with the adaptive German matrix test with speech and noise in front. Results We found that high levels of open‐set speech comprehension are achieved at suprathreshold presentation levels in quiet. However, results at lower test levels have remained mostly unchanged for tested sound processors with default dynamic range. Expanding the lower limit of the acoustic input dynamic range yields better speech comprehension at lower presentation levels. In noise the application of ForwardFocus improves the speech reception. Overall, a continuous improvement for speech perception across three generations of CI sound processors was found. Conclusions Findings motivate further development of signal pre‐processing, an additional focus of clinical work on lower stimulation levels, and automation of ForwardFocus. Level of evidence 2.

Objective: To describe the principles and operation of a new telemetry-based function test for the Nucleus ® cochlear implant, known as the CS19 Intra-Cochlear Impedance Matrix (IIM) and to present results from a multicentre clinical study to establish reproducibility (test-retest reliability) and normative ranges. Method: The IIM test measures bipolar impedances between all electrode pairs and employs a normalization procedure based on common ground impedances in order to identify abnormal current paths among electrodes. Six European clinics collected IIM data from a total of 192 devices. Results: Reproducibility was high between initial and repeat measurements. The normative analysis demonstrated narrow ranges among devices after normalization of impedance data. The IIM is able to identify abnormal current paths that are not evident from standard impedance telemetry and may otherwise only be found utilising average electrode voltage measurements (AEV). Conclusions:The IIM test was found to be straightforward to perform clinically and demonstrated reproducible data with narrow ranges in normally-functioning devices. Because this test uses a very low stimulation level the IIM test is well suited for children or multiply handicapped CI users who cannot reliably report on their auditory percepts. The new algorithms show potential to improve implant integrity testing capabilities if implemented in future clinical software.

Neural response imaging thresholds were obtained more rapidly with the smart algorithm than with SoundWave. Because no differences were observed between SmartNRI and behavioral programs, SmartNRI programs may be a useful alternative to behavioral programs in difficult to fit cases, where user feedback is sometimes difficult to obtain.

Background: To assess the performance of cochlear implant users, speech comprehension benefits are generally measured in controlled sound room environments of the laboratory. For field-based assessment of preference, questionnaires are generally used. Since questionnaires are typically administered at the end of an experimental period, they can be inaccurate due to retrospective recall. An alternative known as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) has begun to be used for clinical research. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of using EMA to obtain in-the-moment responses from cochlear implant users describing their technology preference in specific acoustic listening situations. Methods: Over a two-week period, eleven adult cochlear implant users compared two listening programs containing different sound processing technologies during everyday take-home use. Their task was to compare and vote for their preferred program. Results: A total of 205 votes were collected from acoustic environments that were classified into six listening scenes. The analysis yielded different patterns of voting among the subjects. Two subjects had a consistent preference for one sound processing technology across all acoustic scenes, three subjects changed their preference based on the acoustic scene, and six subjects had no conclusive preference for either technology. Conclusion: Results show that EMA is suitable for quantifying real-world self-reported preference, showing inter-subject variability in different listening environments. However, there is uncertainty that patients will not provide sufficient spontaneous feedback. One improvement for future research is a participant forced prompt to improve response rates.