Predicting speech perception outcomes following cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness or highly asymmetric hearing loss

Kitterick, Pádraig T.; Lucas, Laura

doi:10.1080/14670100.2016.1155806

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This results in masking of sound presented on the side with better hearing. Not surprisingly, these devices improve masked speech recognition under some conditions but degrade it under other conditions: A benefit in masked speech perception is observed when the masker is presented on the side with better hearing thresholds, but a decrement in performance occurs when the masker is presented on the side of the UHL ( Kitterick, Smith, & Lucas, 2016 ; Linstrom, Silverman, & Yu, 2009 ). CROS and BCHA devices also fail to improve sound localization for listeners with moderate-to-profound sensorineural UHL and may degrade performance ( Grantham et al., 2012 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whereas some data indicate improved localization in all patients and asymptotic benefit by 3 months after CI activation (Dillon, Buss, Anderson, et al., 2017), other studies report inconsistent benefit across study subjects ( Tavora-Vieira et al., 2015 ) and evidence of improved performance with increasing listening experience of up to a year or more ( Hansen et al., 2013 ). One challenge for understanding the factors responsible for individual differences in the spatial hearing benefit and the time course over which it emerges is the fact that some of the study samples are quite small and heterogeneous with respect to variables known to impact CI performance, such as duration of deafness prior to implantation ( Kitterick & Lucas, 2016 ). Variability in test materials and procedures across studies further complicates interpretation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A FDA clinical trial was carried out to evaluate the potential benefit of cochlear implant (CI) use for adults with unilateral moderate-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. Subjects were 20 adults with moderate-to-profound unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and normal or near-normal hearing on the other side. A MED-EL standard electrode was implanted in the impaired ear. Outcome measures included: (a) sound localization on the horizontal plane (11 positions, −90° to 90°), (b) word recognition in quiet with the CI alone, and (c) masked sentence recognition with the target at 0° and the masker at −90°, 0°, or 90°. This battery was completed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after CI activation. Normative data were also collected for 20 age-matched control subjects with normal or near-normal hearing bilaterally. The CI improved localization accuracy and reduced side bias. Word recognition with the CI alone was similar to performance of traditional CI recipients. The CI improved masked sentence recognition when the masker was presented from the front or from the side of normal or near-normal hearing. The binaural benefits observed with the CI increased between the 1- and 3-month intervals but appeared stable thereafter. In contrast to previous reports on localization and speech perception in patients with unilateral sensorineural hearing loss, CI benefits were consistently observed across individual subjects, and performance was at asymptote by the 3-month test interval. Cochlear implant settings, consistent CI use, and short duration of deafness could play a role in this result.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have investigated CI benefits for SSD patients with restricted acoustic hearing. For these patients, CI improved localization, speech recognition and/or Qol [Arndt et al, 2017;Arts et al, 2017;Cadieux et al, 2013;Franko-Tobin et al, 2015;Kitterick and Lucas, 2016;Sanhueza et al, 2016;van Loon et al, 2017]. While CI may benefit SSD patients with unrestricted or restricted acoustic hearing, it is unclear how audibility in the non-implanted ear contributes to CI benefits, especially for patients with extensive CI experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Dorbeau

Galvin

et al. 2018

Audiol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation (CI) can benefit patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) in terms of sound localization, speech understanding in noise, tinnitus severity, and quality of life (QoL). In previous studies, CI outcomes have been largely reported for SSD patients with normal “unrestricted” hearing in the contralateral ear. However, SSD patients may often have some degree of hearing loss in the contralateral ear (“restricted” acoustic hearing). In this study, we report results from a French clinical trial for CI in in SSD patients (NCT02204618). Localization, speech reception thresholds (SRTs) in noise, tinnitus severity, and QoL were evaluated in 18 SSD patients 1 year after CI. Data were analyzed for 2 subject groups according to the pure-tone average thresholds in the non-implanted ear: unrestricted acoustic hearing (UNRES; ≤25 dB HL; n = 10) and restricted acoustic hearing (RES; > 25 dB HL; n = 8). Across all subjects, localization was significantly better with the CI on than off (p = 0.005); there was no significant difference between subject groups (p = 0.301). When speech and noise were co-located (S0N0), there was no significant difference in SRTs with the CI on or off (p = 0.480); SRTs were significantly better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.005). When speech and noise were spatially separated (S_CIN_NH), SRTs were significantly better with the CI on than off (p < 0.001). While SRTs were better for the UNRES than for the RES group (p = 0.024), the CI benefit was more than 50% greater for the RES group due to the restoration of high-frequency speech cues. Questionnaire data showed that tinnitus severity was significantly reduced (p = 0.045) and QoL was significantly improved after one year of experience with the CI (p < 0.001). Age at testing was significantly correlated with SRTs for the S0N0 condition; duration of deafness was correlated with SRTs for the S_CIN_NH condition. There were relatively few correlations between behavioral and subjective measures, suggesting that both were valuable when assessing CI benefits for SSD patients. The present data suggest that indications for CI should be expanded to include unilaterally deaf patients who have normal hearing or mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the non-implanted ear.

show abstract

“…The factors of influence are, for example, the cause and duration of hearing loss, age at implantation, central auditory factors, cognition, motivation, position of the electrode, lifestyle, socio-economic factors, etc. [ 20 – 23 ] and this emphasizes the importance of an individual approach, taking such factors into consideration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss

Huinck

Mylanus

Snik

2019

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To report on a retrospective cohort study on the effects of expanding inclusion criteria for application of cochlear implants (CIs) on the performance 1-year post-implantation. Methods Based on pre-implantation audiometric thresholds and aided speech recognition scores, the data of 164 CI recipients were divided into a group of patients that fulfilled conservative criteria (mean hearing loss at 0.5, 1 and 2 kHz > 85 dB HL and phoneme scores with hearing aids < 30%), and the remaining group of patients that felt outside this conservative criterion. Speech recognition scores (in quiet) and quality of life (using the NCIQ) of both groups, measured at 1-year post-implantation, were compared. Results The group that felt outside the conservative criterion showed a higher phoneme score at 1-year post-implantation compared to the conservative group, suggesting that relaxed criteria have a positive influence on the speech recognition results with CI. With respect to quality of life, both groups significantly improved 1-year post-implantation. The conservative group showed a higher benefit on the advanced perception domain of the NCIQ. Based on their worse pre-implantation hearing, this was expected. Conclusions The data suggest that relaxation of CI indication positively affects the speech recognition performance of patients with severe hearing loss. Both groups of patients showed a positive effect of CI on the quality of life. This benefit relates to communication skills and the subjective day-to-day functioning in society.

show abstract

Predicting speech perception outcomes following cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness or highly asymmetric hearing loss

Cited by 19 publications

References 11 publications

Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

Effects of Cochlear Implantation on Binaural Hearing in Adults With Unilateral Hearing Loss

Binaural Perception in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users with Unrestricted or Restricted Acoustic Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear

Expanding unilateral cochlear implantation criteria for adults with bilateral acquired severe sensorineural hearing loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About