Speech Discrimination Scores Using the Latest Generation of Speech Processors

Abstract

The Manchester Cochlear Implant Programme was established in 1988 and over 1000 patients have been implanted to date. Developments and improvements in cochlear implant technology over the past 21 years have resulted in new generations of implants and speech processors becoming available for use with patients. Since 2004, our patients have been asked to choose a device, based on their own preferences.This study looks at the speech discrimination scores of adults fitted with the latest generation of speech processors, including the Freedom (n=40), the Harmony (n=3) and the Opus 2 (n=7). These scores are also compared to those of patients using earlier generations of speech processors, including the Esprit 3G (n=89), the Auria (n=9) and the Tempo+ (n=38).Speech discrimination assessments (CUNY sentences, BKB sentences (in quiet and in noise) and AB words) were undertaken at the following intervals: 1 week, 3 months, 9 months and 21 months post switch-on. Patients were grouped according to their speech processor type and speech discrimination scores compared across the 6 groups.Our findings show that patients using the newer generation of speech processors tend to have higher speech discrimination scores than those using older generations of processor.

Patients' involvement in choosing a cochlear implant

“…The manufacturers are similar in terms of customer support and are continually developing more sophisticated speech-processing strategies and algorithms. The latest generation processors offer better speech discrimination scores than the old generation of processors in adults and the biggest improvement was seen between 1 week and 3 months (Brough et al, 2010) irrespective of the device. In the current service evaluation, the most common reason reported by the patients and the parents of the children was related to comfort and fit, looks, and size of the processor.…”

“…It is surprising that not many patients and parents of the children spoke about the technology aspect of the implants as their reason for choosing a particular device. Brough et al (2010) reported that even after informing the patients about the different trends in the outcomes with different devices to help the patients to make an informed choice, the information does not seem to influence the choice of device. Some of the patients find choosing a device a difficult task: in such scenarios the clinicians would suggest that the patient takes time to feel the controls on the processors to determine which might be the easiest to use, particularly if they experience problems with dexterity and/or vision.…”