Speech Perception Performance as a Function of Age at Implantation Among Postlingually Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

Abstract

Patients implanted at a later age performed more poorly on AzBio sentences. A similar trend was noted with CNC scores although not significant. The variability in correlation coefficients and significance between both speech perception tests and AAI suggests that, as patients age, their performance on each individual test will be affected to a varying degree.

Predictive Factors of Cochlear Implant Outcomes in the Elderly

“…As suggested in previously reported retrospective research, our multivariate analysis confirms that advanced age is associated with poorer speech perception scores, but only in very difficult noisy conditions, such as 0 dB SNR [Budenz et al, 2011;Carlson et al, 2010;Friedland et al, 2010;Gaylor et al, 2013;Lazard et al, 2012;Leung et al, 2005;Mahmoud and Ruckenstein, 2014;Roberts et al, 2013]. Shorter duration of hearing deprivation, residual hearing and preimplant hearing aid use in the future implanted ear positively influence cochlear implant outcomes in elderly patients and is supported by research in younger adult populations [Lazard et al, 2012;Holden et al, 2013].…”

“…The asymmetry of the central auditory pathways, with a left temporal lobe assigned to speech specialization, and the fact that fibers of the auditory pathways cross the midline, may largely explain why patients implanted on the right side obtain better results in noise. Budenz et al [2011] also describe a right-ear advantage in the elderly group; however, other researchers report no influence of the side of the implantation for the elderly or younger patient groups [Holden et al, 2013;Mahmoud and Ruckenstein, 2014;Roberts et al, 2013]. Caloric test n = 77 n = 69 n = 63 Implanted/nonimplanted ear Areflexia 9 (12)/5 (7) 18 (26) 7 (10) 10 (16) Values are presented as number (%).…”

“…The literature provides evidence that cochlear implantation in the elderly improves speech perception ability in quiet and noise and in the quality of life, even in patients aged 80 years and older, with a durable benefit over time [Budenz et al, 2011;Carlson et al, 2010;Clark et al, 2012;Cloutier et al, 2014;Dillon et al, 2013;Friedland et al, 2010;Lenarz et al, 2012;Leung et al, 2005;Mahmoud and Ruckenstein, 2014; Mosnier et al, in press;Olze et al, 2012;Roberts et al, 2013;Williamson et al, 2009]. Most of these retrospective studies compare speech perception scores between the elderly and a cohort of younger patients, and show that advanced age is correlated negatively with cochlear implant outcome, especially for tests in noise.…”

Pediatric Minimum Speech Test Battery

“…While the release of the PMSTB will not automatically result in multicenter studies nor in the development of a pediatric registry, without it, such endeavors would be nearly impossible. Using the adult CI population as a comparison, since the release of the adult MSTB in 2011, researchers have published 11 peer-reviewed papers describing outcomes for adult CI recipients using AzBio sentence lists (Dorman et al, 2012;Gifford et al, 2014;Koch et al, 2014;Mahmoud and Ruckenstein, 2014;Massa and Ruckenstein, 2014;Dorman et al, 2015;Wolfe et al, 2015;Beyea et al, 2016;Olds et al, 2016;Roland et al, 2016;Runge et al, 2016). These 11 papers all included ''at least'' 30 participants with CIs (M 5 69 participants; range 32-125) and met classification criteria as a Quality-B or higher study per the quality assessment grading metrics employed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (AHRQ, 2011;2014).…”

Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users

“…CI devices can provide recipients with substantial amounts of open-set word recognition in quiet, albeit with large amounts of individual differences (Mahmoud and Ruckenstein, 2014). Most CI recipients complain about difficulty understanding speech in noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) that would have little impact on speech understanding in listeners with normal hearing (Gifford and Revit, 2010).…”