Stéphanie Borel

Speech Performance and Sound Localization in a Complex Noisy Environment in Bilaterally Implanted Adult Patients

Objective: To evaluate speech performance, in quiet and noise, and localization ability in adult patients who had undergone bilateral and simultaneous implantation. Study Design: Prospective multi-center study. Methods: Twenty-seven adult patients with profound or total hearing loss were bilaterally implanted in a single-stage procedure, and simultaneously activated (Med-El, Combi 40/40+). Subjects were assessed before implantation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after switch-on. Speech perception tests in monaural and binaural conditions were performed in quiet and in noise using disyllabic words, with speech coming from the front and a cocktail party background noise coming from 5 loudspeakers. Sound localization measurements were also performed in background noise coming from 5 loudspeakers positioned from –90° to +90° azimuth in the horizontal plane, and using a speech stimulus. Results: There was a bilateral advantage at 12 months in quiet (77 ± 5.0% in bilateral condition, 67 ± 5.3% for the better ear, p < 0.005) and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio +15 dB: 63 ± 5.9% in bilateral condition, 55 ± 6.9% for the better ear, p < 0.05). Considering unilateral speech scores recorded in quiet at 12 months, subjects were categorized as ‘good performers’ (speech comprehension score ≥60% for the better ear, n = 19) and ‘poor performers’ (n = 8). Subjects were also categorized as ‘asymmetrical’ (difference between their 2 unilateral speech scores ≥20%, n = 11) or ‘symmetrical’ (n = 16). The largest advantage (bilateral compared to the better ear) was obtained in poor performers: +19% compared to +7% in good performers (p < 0.05). In the group of good performers, there was a bilateral advantage only in cases of symmetrical results between the 2 ears (n = 10). In the group of poor performers, the bilateral advantage was shown in both patients with symmetrical (n = 6) and asymmetrical results (n = 2). In bilateral conditions, the sound localization ability in noise was improved compared to monaural conditions in patients with symmetrical and asymmetrical performance between the 2 ears. No preoperative factor (age, duration of deafness, use of hearing aids, etiology, etc.) could predict the asymmetrical performance, nor which ear would be the best. Conclusion: This study demonstrates a bilateral advantage (at 12 months after the implantation) in speech intelligibility and sound localization in a complex noisy environment. In quiet, this bilateral advantage is shown in cases of poor performance of both ears, and in cases of good performance with symmetrical results between the 2 ears. No preoperative factor can predict the best candidates for a simultaneous bilateral implantation.

Hearing Preservation after Cochlear Implantation Using Deeply Inserted Flex Atraumatic Electrode Arrays

The aim of this study was to investigate hearing preservation in adults receiving cochlear implants with Flex arrays. Fifteen adults (19 ears) implanted with Flex EAS® (n = 4) or Flex Soft® (n = 15; MedEL, Innsbruck, Austria) were included in this retrospective study. The mean array insertion length was 25 ± 0.9 mm (n = 19), and the mean cochlear coverage was 435 ± 14.5° (n = 19), with no difference between EAS and Soft arrays. Residual low-frequency hearing was preserved in all implanted ears but deteriorated [pure-tone average (125–1000 Hz) 55.1 ± 2.90 dB before vs. 81.0 ± 3.02 dB after surgery (n = 19, p < 0.01)]. Both Flex arrays allow deep insertion with reproducible hearing preservation.

Is Electrode-Modiolus Distance a Prognostic Factor for Hearing Performances after Cochlear Implant Surgery?

The aim of this study was to evaluate electrode array position in relation to cochlear anatomy and its influence on hearing performance in cochlear implantees. Twenty-two patients (25 ears) with Med-El cochlear implants were included in this retrospective study. A negative correlation was observed between electrode-modiolus distance (EMD) at the cochlear base and monosyllabic word discrimination 6 months after implantation. We found no correlation between EMD and hearing outcome at 12 months. The insertion depth/cochlear perimeter ratio appeared to negatively influence the EMD at the base. Indeed, deep insertions in small cochleae appeared to yield smaller EMD and better hearing performance. This observation supports the idea of preplanning the surgery by adapting the electrode array to the length of the available scala tympani.

The French version of Speech Handicap Index: validation and comparison with the Voice Handicap Index

Objective: This study aimed to adapt the Speech Handicap Index (SHI) in French, to compare it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and to study its relevance in dysarthric patients. Patients and Methods: Two hundred and twenty-nine subjects filled out the French versions of the SHI and VHI. SHI test-retest reliability was performed on 82 subjects. Psychometric properties were analyzed in 112 healthy controls and 89 patients with speech disorders. Mean scores of 89 speech-disordered and 28 dysphonic patients were obtained. Results: For SHI, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.9) and test-retest reliability (Spearman’s r > 0.75) were high. Mean scores were significantly different between healthy subjects (8/120) and patients (52/120) (p < 0.0001). Scores were statistically different between dysphonic (40/120) and speech-disordered patients (52/120) (p < 0.05), and also between patients with oropharyngeal surgery (44/120) and dysarthric patients (57/120) (p < 0.05). Patients with speech difficulties had higher scores on the SHI than dysphonic patients (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The French SHI is a reliable and sensitive tool. It can be proposed to all patients with speech disorders. The contrasting results between the SHI and the VHI highlight the importance in giving the appropriate questionnaire tailored to the patient’s pathology.

Assessment of ‘Fitting to Outcomes Expert’ FOX™ with new cochlear implant users in a multi-centre study

Abstract Objective To compare the fitting time requirements and the efficiency in achieving improvements in speech perception during the first 6 months after initial stimulation of computer-assisted fitting with the Fitting to Outcome eXpert (FOX) and a standard clinical fitting procedure. Method Twenty-seven post-lingually deafened adults, newly implanted recipients of the Advanced Bionics HiRes 90K™ cochlear implant from Germany, the UK, and France took part in a controlled, randomized, clinical study. Speech perception was measured for all participants and fitting times were compared across groups programmed using FOX and conventional programming methods. Results The fitting time for FOX was significantly reduced at 14 days (P < 0.001) but equivalent over the 6-month period. The groups were not well matched for duration of deafness; therefore, speech perception could not be compared across groups. Discussion Despite including more objective measures of performance than a standard fitting approach and the adjustment of a greater range of parameters during initial fitting, FOX did not add to the overall fitting time when compared to the conventional approach. FOX significantly reduced the fitting time in the first 2 weeks and by providing a standard fitting protocol, reduced variability across centres. Conclusions FOX computer-assisted fitting can be successfully used at switch on, in different clinical environments, reducing fitting time in the first 2 weeks and is efficient at providing a usable program.

New cochlear implant technologies improve performance in post-meningitic deaf patients

The objective of the study was to compare the performance of cochlear implantation between post-meningitic and non-meningitic patients, and to evaluate the impact on hearing outcome of technical advances in cochlear implant technology. Retrospective chart review was used as the study design. Twenty adults with post-meningitic profound hearing loss receiving unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants between 1990 and 2008 were tested. Results were compared to a control group of 46 adults implanted for a non-meningitic hearing loss, with the same pre-operative speech scores. Speech scores were poorer in post-meningitic patients compared to those of control group, whatever the duration after implantation (pxa0<xa00.0001). Speech scores of subjects implanted and fitted before 2001 were compared to those of subjects implanted after 2001, with the same duration of hearing loss. Performance improved with implants and processors available after 2001, with a magnitude of improvement higher in post-meningitic patients (pxa0<xa00.0001 and pxa0<xa00.05 in post-meningitic and control groups, respectively, two-way ANOVA). Consequently, speech scores of post-meningitic patients implanted after 2001 achieved those of control subjects (two-way ANOVA). Advances in cochlear implant technology and coding strategy improve hearing outcome in post-meningitic adult patients, who now achieve similar performance as those of non-meningitic patients.

Interaction between electric and acoustic cues in diotic condition for speech perception in quiet and noise by cochlear implantees.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the interaction of electric and acoustic cues in diotic condition in cochlear implantees. Materials and Methods Five adult cochlear implantees with residual contralateral hearing were prospectively evaluated in hearing aid only (HA), cochlear implant only (CI), and HA + CI modes by audiometry (pure tone, dissyllabic words, and sentences), and sound quality questionnaires. CI electrodes corresponding to preserved frequencies in the contralateral ear (free-field aided thresholds, <50 dB) were then deactivated, and patients were retested after 20 to 30 days. Results Sentences in silence showed a benefit of CI and the additive effect of HA + CI. As expected, performances with CI alone decreased after apical electrode deactivation. In contrast, speech performances (Marginal Benefit from Acoustic Amplification sentences) in HA + CI mode were not altered by electrode deactivation in silence (90 ± 5.9% before versus 81 ± 10.1% after deactivation, not significant, 2-way analysis of variance) or in noise (78 ± 4.8% before versus 66 ± 11.9% after deactivation, not significant, 2-way analysis of variance). Performances for dissyllabic words confirmed these results. Questionnaires showed a significant compensation of partial electrode deactivation by the contralateral hearing. Moreover, the human voice was reported to be significantly less metallic. Conclusion These results suggested a significant complementarity of acoustic and electric diotic cues but also some redundancy affecting the sound quality.

Fluctuating Hearing Loss in the Only Hearing Ear: Cochlear Implantation in the Contralateral Deaf Side:

Objective To investigate the hearing performance of adult patients presenting unilateral deafness with contralateral fluctuating hearing loss who received a cochlear implant on the deaf side. Study Design Case series with chart review. Setting University tertiary referral center. Subjects and Methods Preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, 23 patients underwent pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry with disyllabic and monosyllabic words in a quiet environment and sentences in quiet and noisy (signal-to-noise ratio +10 dB SPL) environments under best-aided conditions. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) inventory was evaluated preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Results No difference was found between pre- and postoperative tests for disyllabic and monosyllabic words. For sentences in quiet and noisy environments, a difference between pre- and postoperative performance was present at 1 year (P = .002 and P = .02, respectively). In a noisy environment, a difference was present at 6 and 12 months postoperatively as compared with the preoperative value (mean ± SD: 6 months: 42% ± 7.1% vs 61% ± 6.5%, P = .016). A significant improvement in the APHAB score was found at 6 and 12 months postimplantation (Friedman’s 2-way analysis of variance by ranks, P < .001). The number of years of hearing deprivation of the deaf ear was not correlated with performance. Conclusion When incapacitating fluctuating hearing loss occurs in patients presenting a contralateral deaf ear, a cochlear implant is indicated in the latter ear, significantly improving performance in noisy conditions and allowing a better quality of communication to be achieved.

Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users

The objectives of the study were to demonstrate the audiological and subjective benefits of the adaptive UltraZoom beamforming technology available in the Naída CI Q70 sound processor, in cochlear-implanted adults upgraded from a previous generation sound processor. Thirty-four adults aged between 21 and 89 years (mean 53xa0±xa019) were prospectively included. Nine subjects were unilaterally implanted, 11 bilaterally and 14 were bimodal users. The mean duration of cochlear implant use was 7 years (range 5–15 years). Subjects were tested in quiet with monosyllabic words and in noise with the adaptive French Matrix test in the best-aided conditions. The test setup contained a signal source in front of the subject and three noise sources at +/−90° and 180°. The noise was presented at a fixed level of 65 dB SPL and the level of speech signal was varied to obtain the speech reception threshold (SRT). During the upgrade visit, subjects were tested with the Harmony and with the Naída CI sound processors in omnidirectional microphone configuration. After a take-home phase of 2xa0months, tests were repeated with the Naída CI processor with and without UltraZoom. Subjective assessment of the sound quality in daily environments was recorded using the APHAB questionnaire. No difference in performance was observed in quiet between the two processors. The Matrix test in noise was possible in the 21 subjects with the better performance. No difference was observed between the two processors for performance in noise when using the omnidirectional microphone. At the follow-up session, the median SRT with the Naída CI processor with UltraZoom was −4 dB compared to −0.45 dB without UltraZoom. The use of UltraZoom improved the median SRT by 3.6xa0dB (pxa0<xa00.0001, Wilcoxon paired test). When looking at the APHAB outcome, improvement was observed for speech understanding in noisy environments (pxa0<xa00.01) and in aversive situations (pxa0<xa00.05) in the group of 21 subjects who were able to perform the Matrix test in noise and for speech understanding in noise (pxa0<xa00.05) in the group of 13 subjects with the poorest performance, who were not able to perform the Matrix test in noise. The use of UltraZoom beamforming technology, available on the new sound processor Naída CI, improves speech performance in difficult and realistic noisy conditions when the cochlear implant user needs to focus on the person speaking at the front. Using the APHAB questionnaire, a subjective benefit for listening in background noise was also observed in subjects with good performance as well as in those with poor performance. This study highlighted the importance of upgrading CI recipients to new technology and to include assessment in noise and subjective feedback evaluation as part of the process.

Contents Vol. 18, 2013

Maurizio Barbara, Rome Olivier Bertrand, Bron F. Owen Black, Portland Th omas Brandt, München Barbara Canlon, Stockholm John P. Carey, Baltimore Douglas A. Cotanche, Boston Cor W.R.J. Cremers, Nijmegen Norbert Dillier, Zürich Robert Dobie, Sacramento Manuel Don, Los Angeles Jill B. Firszt, St. Louis Andrew Forge, London Bernard Fraysse, Toulouse Rick Friedman, Los Angeles Bruce J. Gantz, Iowa City Pablo Gil-Loyzaga, Madrid Anthony W. Gummer, Tübingen James W. Hall III, Gainesville Joseph W. Hall III, Chapel Hill Michael Halmagyi, Camperdown Rudolf Häusler, Bern Vicente Honrubia, Los Angeles Gary D. Housley, Auckland Karl-Bernd Hüttenbrink, Köln Pawel J. Jastreboff , Atlanta Margaret A. Kenna, Boston Philippe P. Lefebvre, Liège Bernd Lütkenhöner, Münster Linda L. Luxon, London Geoff rey A. Manley, Oldenburg Alessandro Martini, Padova Jennifer R. Melcher, Boston Brian C.J. Moore, Cambridge David R. Moore, Nottingham Cynthia C. Morton, Boston Donata Oertel, Madison Kaoru Ogawa, Tokyo Stephen J. O’Leary, Parkville Alan R. Palmer, Nottingham Lorne S. Parnes, London, Ont. Jean-Luc Puel, Montpellier Ramesh Rajan, Monash Yehoash Raphael, Ann Arbor J. Th omas Roland, Jr., New York John J. Rosowski, Boston Rudolf Rübsamen, Leipzig Mario A. Ruggero, Evanston Leonard P. Rybak, Springfi eld Richard J. Salvi, Buff alo Robert V. Shannon, Los Angeles Guido F. Smoorenburg, Besse sur Issole Haim Sohmer, Jerusalem Olivier Sterkers, Clichy Istvan Sziklai, Debrecen Peter R. Th orne, Auckland Shin-ichi Usami, Matsumoto P. Ashley Wackym, Portland Tatsuya Yamasoba, Tokyo Fan-Gang Zeng, Irvine The Science of Hearing and Balance