Speech intelligibility and subjective benefit in single-sided deaf adults after cochlear implantation

Finke, Mareike; Strauß-Schier, A; Kludt, E; Büchner, Andreas; Illg, Angelika

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2017.03.002

Cited by 41 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While there was a limited number of subjects in this study, the data consistent with previous SSD studies [Cabral et al, 2016;Dorman et al, 2016;Finke et al, 2017;Firszt et al, 2012a, b;Kuppler et al, 2013;Kitoh et al, 2016;Mertens et al, 2015aMertens et al, , 2017Nawaz et al, 2014;Rahne and Plontke, 2016;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Tokita et al, 2014;Van de Heyning et al, 2008;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…When speech and noise were spatially separated (S CI N NH ), performance was significantly better with the CI on, consistent with previous studies [Finke et al, 2017;Mertens et al, 2017;Rahne and Plontke, 2016;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015]. CI benefits were observed for all subjects except S10, who did not wear the CI every day.…”

Section: Speech Understanding In Noisesupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The loss of binaural function has been associated with reduced localization, speech understanding in noise, and quality of life (QoL) in SSD patients [Cabral et al, 2016;Finke et al, 2017;Grossmann et al, 2016;Kuppler et al, 2013;Nawaz et al, 2014;Tokita et al, 2014;Wie et al, 2010]. For SSD patients, restoration of binaural function is possible with a cochlear implant (CI).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For SSD patients, restoration of binaural function is possible with a cochlear implant (CI). A number of studies have shown that CI can improve SSD patients' localization, speech understanding in noise, and QoL [Cabral et al, 2016;Dorman et al, 2016;Finke et al, 2017;Firszt et al, 2012a, b;Kuppler et al, 2013;Kitoh et al, 2016;Mertens et al, 2015aMertens et al, , b, 2017Nawaz et al, 2014;Rahne and Plontke, 2016;Távora-Vieira et al, 2015;Tokita et al, 2014;Van de Heyning et al, 2008;Vermeire and Van de Heyning, 2009;Zeitler et al, 2015]. Many SSD patients also are affected by debilitating tinnitus, for which there is no consistently effective intervention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Speech Understanding In Noisesupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…Although both route sound from the affected side to the better hearing ear, hearing is not restored in the affected ear so optimization of binaural hearing is minimal . The off‐label use of cochlear implantation to treat UHL has demonstrated not only improvement of auditory perception in the affected ear, but restoration of binaural hearing with resulting improvement in speech perception in noise and sound localization …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation in unilateral meniere's disease

Perkins

Rooth

Dillon

et al. 2018

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveIn a single‐institution, FDA‐approved IDE study, subjects with unilateral Meniere's disease and intractable vertigo underwent concurrent labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation to determine speech perception, localization, and quality of life outcomes.MethodsThree subjects with unilateral Meniere's disease with normal or near‐normal hearing in the contralateral ear underwent simultaneous labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation. Sound localization, speech perception in noise and quiet, tinnitus handicap index, and quality of life measures were evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months after implant activation.ResultsSound localization testing demonstrated immediate benefit postimplantation with the cochlear implant (CI). RMS error with CI on was 22 degrees (±2) and with CI off was 63 (±15) at 6 months. Mean CI alone scores were 22% (±20) at 1 month and improved to 43% (±20) and 49% (±11) at the 3‐ and 6‐month intervals, respectively. AzBio sentences in babble (0 dB SNR) scores presented in the most challenging listening condition (S0NContra) were 28% (±20) at 1 month, 38% (±18) at 3 months, and 45% (±24) at 6 months. Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) significantly improved from an average preoperative score of 42 (±26) to 0 at 6 months. Quality of life measures improved overall over the postimplantation follow‐up intervals.ConclusionsSubjects with unilateral Meniere's Disease who underwent simultaneous labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation experienced improvements in sound localization, speech understanding, tinnitus severity, and quality of life with device use. There was a trend for better performance over the postoperative intervals.Level of Evidence2b.

show abstract

Cochlear Implantation in Children With Single-Sided Deafness

Benchetrit

Ronner

Anne

et al. 2021

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCEIn 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration approved cochlear implantation for children with single-sided deafness (SSD). The absence of robust clinical data specific to pediatric patients to guide shared decision-making and to identify potential advantages is a challenge in family counseling.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the audiological and patient-reported outcomes in children who underwent cochlear implantation for SSD and to assess the association between time of implantation, subjective outcomes, and cochlear implant device use rates.DATA SOURCE MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and PubMed were searched for English-language articles that were published in a peer-reviewed journal from database inception to February 18, 2020.STUDY SELECTION Inclusion criteria were designed to capture studies that evaluated pediatric patients (1) younger than 18 years, (2) with a diagnosis of SSD for which they underwent a cochlear implantation, and (3) with at least 1 outcome of interest measured numerically: speech perception, sound localization, device use, and patient-reported outcomes. Of the 526 articles reviewed, 12 (2.3%) met the selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines were followed. Data were pooled using fixed-effect and random-effect models. The following information was obtained from each article: study characteristics, patient characteristics, hearing loss and intervention characteristics, and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESOutcomes were (1) postoperative changes in speech perception (in quiet was measured as a proportion of correct responses, and in noise was measured as decibel signal to noise ratio for speech reception threshold) and sound localization (measured in degree of localization error), (2) patient-reported audiological outcomes (measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale), and (3) device use rates among children who received cochlear implantation for SSD. RESULTSTwelve observational studies that evaluated 119 children (mean [SD] age, 6.6 [4.0] years) with SSD who received a cochlear implant were included. Most children showed clinically meaningful improvement in speech perception in noise (39 of 49 children [79.6%]) and in quiet (34 of 42 children [81.0%]). Long duration of deafness (>4 years in congenital SSD and >7 years in perilingual SSD) was the most commonly proposed reason for lack of improvement. Sound localization as measured by degrees of error from true location (mean difference [MD], -24.78°; 95% CI, -34.16°to -15.40°; I 2 = 10%) improved statistically significantly after cochlear implantation. Patients with acquired SSD and shorter duration of deafness compared with those with congenital SSD reported greater improvements in speech (MD, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.89-2.65 vs 1.58; 95% CI, 1.00-2.16) and spatial (MD, 2.95; 95% CI, 2.66-3.24 vs 1.68; 95% CI, 0.96-2.39) hearing qualities. The duration of deafness among device nonusers was statistically significantly longer than t...

show abstract

Speech intelligibility and subjective benefit in single-sided deaf adults after cochlear implantation

Cited by 41 publications

References 41 publications

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

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

Simultaneous labyrinthectomy and cochlear implantation in unilateral meniere's disease

Cochlear Implantation in Children With Single-Sided Deafness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About