Despite being considered one of the most successful neural prostheses, cochlear implants (CIs) provide recipients with a wide range of speech perception performance. While some CI users can understand speech in the absence of visual cues, other recipients exhibit more limited speech perception. Cognitive skills have been documented as a contributor to complex auditory processing, such as language understanding; however, there are no normative data for existing standardized clinical tests assessing cognitive abilities in CI users. Here, we assess the impact of modality of presentation (i.e., auditory-visual versus visual) for the administration of working memory tests in high-performing CI users in addition to measuring processing speed, cognitive efficiency and intelligence quotient (IQ). Second, we relate performance on these cognitive measures to clinical CI speech perception outcomes.Methods: Twenty one post-lingually deafened, high-performing, adult CI users [age range: 52–88 years; 3 unilateral CI, 13 bimodal (i.e., CI with contralateral hearing aid), 5 bilateral CI] with clinical speech perception scores (i.e., AzBio sentences in quiet for the first-ear CI) of ≥60% were recruited. A cognitive test battery assessing auditory-visual working memory (AVWM), visual working memory (VWM), processing speed, cognitive efficiency and IQ was administered, in addition to clinical measures of speech perception in quiet (i.e., AzBio sentences in quiet). AzBio sentences were assessed in two conditions: first-ear CI only, and best-aided everyday wearing condition. Subjects also provided self-reported measures of performance and benefit from their CI using standardized materials, including the Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant questionnaire (NCIQ).Results: High-performing CI users demonstrated greater VWM than AVWM recall. VWM was positively related to AzBio scores when measured in the first-ear CI only. AVWM, processing speed, cognitive efficiency, and IQ did not relate to either measure of speech perception (i.e., first-ear CI or best-aided conditions). Subjects’ self-reported benefit as measured by the GBI predicted best-aided CI speech perception performance.Conclusion: In high-performing CI recipients, visual presentation of working memory tests may improve our assessment of cognitive function.

Objectives Commonly used cognitive screening tools were not originally developed for patients with hearing loss (HL) and rely heavily on the ability to hear the instructions and test stimuli. Recently, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was modified for use with hearing‐impaired populations (ie, HI‐MoCA). In order to investigate the clinical utility of the HI‐MoCA, we assessed performance between the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA among postlingually deafened cochlear implant (CI) users. Methods We administered the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA to 21 CI users and compared their performance. We assessed differences in pass/fail status when items from the attention and language sections and the delayed recall task were removed. Results There was no significant difference in performance between the standard MoCA and HI‐MoCA. Participants scored higher on both test versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Participants also performed better on the delayed recall task on the HI‐MoCA than on the standard MoCA. Conclusions While our findings suggest that the modality of presentation for the MoCA does not influence overall performance for postlingually deafened CI users, visual presentation of stimuli impacted performance on delayed recall. Furthermore, irrespective of presentation modality, our participants scored higher on both MoCA versions when the delayed recall task was removed. Clinically, modifications to the presentation of the MoCA might not be necessary for CI users; however, clinicians should be aware that the delayed recall task is inherently harder for these patients.

No abstract

Clinicians should consider implementing a fixed-directional microphone setting for improved localization for sounds behind the OI device, but inform patients of the trade-off in performance on the normal-hearing side. For better hearing in noise, clinicians should counsel OI recipients to orient the speech signal to their normal hearing ear rather than their OI device. The background noise subscale of the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) provides a meaningful metric by which to assess SIN performance of OI device users.