Jill B. Firszt

Summary of Results Using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential

OBJECTIVE This study outlines a series of experiments using the neural response telemetry (NRT) system of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant to measure the electrically evoked compound action potential (EAP). The goal of this investigation was to develop a protocol that allows successful recording of the EAP in a majority of CI24M cochlear implant users. DESIGN Twenty-six postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. A series of experiments were conducted that allowed us to examine how manipulation of stimulation and recording parameters may affect the morphology of the EAP recorded using the Nucleus NRT system. RESULTS Results of this study show consistent responses on at least some electrodes from all subjects. Cross-subject and cross electrode variations in both the growth of the response and the temporal refractory properties of the response were observed. The range of stimulus and recording parameters that can be used to record the EAP with the Nucleus NRT system is described. CONCLUSIONS Using the protocol outlined in this study, it is possible to reliably record EAP responses from most subjects and for most electrodes in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users. These responses are robust and recording these responses does not require that the subject sleep or remain still. Based on these results, a specific protocol is proposed for measurement of the EAP using the NRT system of the CI24M cochlear implant. Potential clinical implications of these results are discussed.

Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants.

Objective: A great deal of variability exists in the speech-recognition abilities of postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients. A number of previous studies have shown that duration of deafness is a primary factor affecting CI outcomes; however, there is little agreement regarding other factors that may affect performance. The objective of the present study was to determine the source of variability in CI outcomes by examining three main factors, biographic/audiologic information, electrode position within the cochlea, and cognitive abilities in a group of newly implanted CI recipients. Design: Participants were 114 postlingually deaf adults with either the Cochlear or Advanced Bionics CI systems. Biographic/audiologic information, aided sentence-recognition scores, a high resolution temporal bone CT scan and cognitive measures were obtained before implantation. Monosyllabic word recognition scores were obtained during numerous test intervals from 2 weeks to 2 years after initial activation of the CI. Electrode position within the cochlea was determined by three-dimensional reconstruction of pre- and postimplant CT scans. Participants’ word scores over 2 years were fit with a logistic curve to predict word score as a function of time and to highlight 4-word recognition metrics (CNC initial score, CNC final score, rise time to 90% of CNC final score, and CNC difference score). Results: Participants were divided into six outcome groups based on the percentile ranking of their CNC final score, that is, participants in the bottom 10% were in group 1; those in the top 10% were in group 6. Across outcome groups, significant relationships from low to high performance were identified. Biographic/audiologic factors of age at implantation, duration of hearing loss, duration of hearing aid use, and duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss were significantly and inversely related to performance as were frequency modulated tone, sound-field threshold levels obtained with the CI. That is, the higher-performing outcome groups were younger in age at the time of implantation, had shorter duration of severe-to-profound hearing loss, and had lower CI sound-field threshold levels. Significant inverse relationships across outcome groups were also observed for electrode position, specifically the percentage of electrodes in scala vestibuli as opposed to scala tympani and depth of insertion of the electrode array. In addition, positioning of electrode arrays closer to the modiolar wall was positively correlated with outcome. Cognitive ability was significantly and positively related to outcome; however, age at implantation and cognition were highly correlated. After controlling for age, cognition was no longer a factor affecting outcomes. Conclusion: There are a number of factors that limit CI outcomes. They can act singularly or collectively to restrict an individual’s performance and to varying degrees. The highest performing CI recipients are those with the least number of limiting factors. Knowledge of when and how these factors affect performance can favorably influence counseling, device fitting, and rehabilitation for individual patients and can contribute to improved device design and application.

Independent evaluation of the speech perception abilities of children with the nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant system

The performance of 28 children with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant, who had used the device an average of 1.7 yr, was examined on a battery of speech perception measures. All children demonstrated better speech perception skills with the implant than they had in the preimplant condition with hearing aids. With the Nucleus implant, 61% of the children demonstrated some open-set speech recognition and another 14% demonstrated closed-set speech recognition. Scores on the tests were corrected for guessing and a hierarchy of test difficulty was developed. The results revealed systematic differences in performance as a function of perception task and test format. The results of regression analyses, which were performed to identify predictors of success, showed that communication mode made a significant unique contribution to the variance in performance among subjects on an open-set word recognition test. When the scores of the children who used oral or total communication were compared on the full battery of tests, however, there were few significant group differences.

Multicenter U.S. bilateral MED-EL cochlear implantation study: Speech perception over the first year of use

Objective: Binaural hearing has been shown to support better speech perception in normal-hearing listeners than can be achieved with monaural stimulus presentation, particularly under noisy listening conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether bilateral electrical stimulation could confer similar benefits for cochlear implant listeners. Design: A total of 26 postlingually deafened adult patients with short duration of deafness were implanted at five centers and followed up for 1 yr. Subjects received MED-EL COMBI 40+ devices bilaterally; in all but one case, implantation was performed in a single-stage surgery. Speech perception testing included CNC words in quiet and CUNY sentences in noise. Target speech was presented at the midline (0 degrees), and masking noise, when present, was presented at one of three simulated source locations along the azimuth (−90, 0, and +90 degrees). Results: Benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation were observed under conditions in which the speech and masker were spatially coincident and conditions in which they were spatially separated. Both the “head shadow” and “summation” effects were evident from the outset. Benefits consistent with “binaural squelch” were not reliably observed until 1 yr after implantation. Conclusions: These results support a growing consensus that bilateral implantation provides functional benefits beyond those of unilateral implantation. Longitudinal data suggest that some aspects of binaural processing continue to develop up to 1 yr after implantation. The squelch effect, often reported as absent or rare in previous studies of bilateral cochlear implantation, was present for most subjects at the 1 yr measurement interval.

Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study.

Objective This pilot study examined speech recognition, localization, temporal and spectral discrimination, and subjective reports of cochlear implant (CI) recipients with unilateral deafness. Study Design Three adult male participants with short-term unilateral deafness (<5 yr) participated. All had sudden onset of severe-to-profound hearing loss in 1 ear, which then received a CI, and normal or near normal hearing in the other ear. Speech recognition in quiet and noise, localization, discrimination of temporal and spectral cues, and a subjective questionnaire were obtained over several days. Listening conditions were CI, normal hearing (NH) ear, and bilaterally (CI and NH). Results All participants had open-set speech recognition and excellent audibility (250–6,000 Hz) with the CI. Localization improved bilaterally compared with the NH ear alone. Word recognition in noise was significantly better bilaterally than with the NH ear for 2 participants. Sentence recognition in various noise conditions did not show significant bilateral improvement; however, the CI did not hinder performance in noise even when noise was toward the CI side. The addition of the CI improved temporal difference discrimination for 2 participants and spectral difference discrimination for all participants. Participants wore the CI full time, and subjective reports were positive. Conclusion Overall, the CI recipients with unilateral deafness obtained open-set speech recognition, improved localization, improved word recognition in noise, and improved perception of their ability to hear in everyday life. A larger study is warranted to further quantify the benefits and limitations of cochlear implantation in individuals with unilateral deafness.

Restoring Hearing Symmetry with Two Cochlear Implants or One Cochlear Implant and a Contralateral Hearing Aid

With todays technology and the demonstrated success of cochlear implantation, along with expanded candidacy criteria, the opportunity to provide optimal hearing to both ears for individuals with severe-to-profound hearing loss is greater than ever. This article reviews the advantages of binaural hearing and the disadvantages of hearing with only one ear or hearing with two ears with significantly different sound thresholds. A case study is presented that demonstrates the benefit of bimodal hearing (i.e., a cochlear implant [CI] in one ear and a contralateral hearing aid [HA]) in a nontraditional CI candidate with asymmetrical hearing thresholds. Then, selected studies in adult recipients who use a CI and contralateral HA or who use two CIs are summarized. The data overall demonstrate that bilateral CI recipients, traditional bimodal recipients, and nontraditional bimodal recipients experience substantial binaural hearing advantages, including improved speech recognition in noise, localization, and functional everyday communication. These results indicate that bilateral stimulation of the auditory system through a CI and contralateral HA or two CIs is beneficial and should become standard clinical practice.

Cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss.

Objective: Bilateral severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss is a standard criterion for cochlear implantation. Increasingly, patients are implanted in one ear and continue to use a hearing aid in the nonimplanted ear to improve abilities such as sound localization and speech understanding in noise. Patients with severe to profound hearing loss in one ear and a more moderate hearing loss in the other ear (i.e., asymmetric hearing) are not typically considered candidates for cochlear implantation. Amplification in the poorer ear is often unsuccessful because of limited benefit, restricting the patient to unilateral listening from the better ear alone. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients with asymmetric hearing loss could benefit from cochlear implantation in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. Design: Ten adults with asymmetric hearing between ears participated. In the poorer ear, all participants met cochlear implant candidacy guidelines; seven had postlingual onset, and three had pre/perilingual onset of severe to profound hearing loss. All had open-set speech recognition in the better-hearing ear. Assessment measures included word and sentence recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in fixed noise (four-talker babble) and in diffuse restaurant noise using an adaptive procedure, localization of word stimuli, and a hearing handicap scale. Participants were evaluated preimplant with hearing aids and postimplant with the implant alone, the hearing aid alone in the better ear, and bimodally (the implant and hearing aid in combination). Postlingual participants were evaluated at 6 mo postimplant, and pre/perilingual participants were evaluated at 6 and 12 mo postimplant. Data analysis compared the following results: (1) the poorer-hearing ear preimplant (with hearing aid) and postimplant (with cochlear implant); (2) the device(s) used for everyday listening pre- and postimplant; and (3) the hearing aid-alone and bimodal listening conditions postimplant. Results: The postlingual participants showed significant improvements in speech recognition after 6 mo cochlear implant use in the poorer ear. Five postlingual participants had a bimodal advantage over the hearing aid-alone condition on at least one test measure. On average, the postlingual participants had significantly improved localization with bimodal input compared with the hearing aid-alone. Only one pre/perilingual participant had open-set speech recognition with the cochlear implant. This participant had better hearing than the other two pre/perilingual participants in both the poorer and better ear. Localization abilities were not significantly different between the bimodal and hearing aid-alone conditions for the pre/perilingual participants. Mean hearing handicap ratings improved postimplant for all participants indicating perceived benefit in everyday life with the addition of the cochlear implant. Conclusions: Patients with asymmetric hearing loss who are not typical cochlear implant candidates can benefit from using a cochlear implant in the poorer ear with continued use of a hearing aid in the better ear. For this group of 10, the 7 postlingually deafened participants showed greater benefits with the cochlear implant than the pre/perilingual participants; however, further study is needed to determine maximum benefit for those with early onset of hearing loss.

Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.

Objective As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures. Results For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions Electrophysiologic responses of Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, Na-Pa of the EAMLR, and N1-P2 of the ELAR were characterized as functions of current level and electrode site. Data from this study may serve as a normative reference for expected latency, amplitude and threshold values for the recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem and cortical potentials. Responses recorded from cochlear implant users show many similar patterns, yet important distinctions, compared with auditory potentials elicited with acoustic signals.

Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

Objective: HiRes (HR) 120 is a sound-processing strategy purported to offer an increase in the precision of frequency-to-place mapping through the use of current steering. This within-subject study was designed to compare speech recognition as well as music and sound quality ratings for HR and HR 120 processing. Setting: Cochlear implant/tertiary referral center. Subjects: Eight postlinguistically deafened adults implanted with an Advanced Bionics CII or HR 90K cochlear implant. Study Design/Main Outcome Measures: Performance with HR and HR 120 was assessed during 4 test sessions with a battery of measures including monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet and in noise, and ratings of sound quality and musical passages. Results: Compared with HR, speech recognition results in adult cochlear implant recipients revealed small but significant improvements with HR 120 for single syllable words and for 2 of 3 sentence recognition measures in noise. Both easy and more difficult sentence material presented in quiet were not significantly different between strategies. Additionally, music quality ratings were significantly better for HR 120 than for HR, and 7 of 8 subjects preferred HR 120 over HR for listening in everyday life. Conclusion: HR 120 may offer equivalent or improved benefit to patients compared with HR. Differences in performance on test measures between strategies are dependent on speech recognition materials and listening conditions.

Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: Comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures

Objective The overall objective of this study was to relate electrically evoked potentials recorded from different levels of the auditory pathway with behavioral measures obtained from adult cochlear implant subjects. The hypothesis was that adult recipients of cochlear implants who have open-set speech perception and those recipients with no open-set speech perception would differ in their neurophysiologic responses recorded at one or more levels of the auditory pathway. Design The subjects were 11 adults implanted with the Clarion cochlear implant. The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR, Wave V), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR, Na-Pa complex), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR, N1-P2 complex), were recorded from three intra-cochlear electrodes. The stimuli used to record the evoked potentials varied in rate and amplitude. Behavioral measures (between threshold and upper limit of comfortable loudness) were used to define the subjects dynamic range at the different stimulus rates. Word and sentence recognition tests evaluated subjects’ speech perception in quiet and noise. Evoked potential and behavioral measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance for repeated measures and correlational analyses. Results Subjects without open-set speech recognition demonstrated 1) poorly formed or absent evoked potential responses, 2) reduced behavioral dynamic ranges, 3) lack of change in the size of the dynamic range with a change in stimulus rate, and 4) longer periods of auditory deprivation. The variables that differentiated the best performers included 1) presence of responses at all three levels of the auditory pathway, with large normalized amplitudes for the EAMLR, 2) lower evoked potential thresholds for the Na-Pa complex, 3) relatively large dynamic ranges, and 4) changes in the size of the dynamic range with changes in stimulus rate. Conclusions In this study, the inability to follow changes in the temporal characteristics of the stimulus was associated with poor speech perception performance. Results also illustrate that variability in speech perception scores of cochlear implant recipients relates to neurophysiologic responses at higher cortical levels of the auditory pathway. Presumably, limited neural synchrony for elicitation of electrophysiologic responses underlies limited speech perception. Results confirm that neural encoding with electrical stimulation must provide sufficient physiologic responses of the central nervous system to perceive speech through a cochlear implant.