Auditory performance after cochlear reimplantation

Author(s):  
M. Durand ◽  
G. Michel ◽  
J. Boyer ◽  
P. Bordure
Keyword(s):  
2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 881-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison L. Chasteen ◽  
M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller ◽  
Kate Dupuis ◽  
Sherri Smith ◽  
Gurjit Singh
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuping Sun ◽  
Michelle R. Kapolowicz ◽  
Matthew Richardson ◽  
Raju Metherate ◽  
Fan-Gang Zeng

AbstractElectrophysiological studies show that nicotine enhances neural responses to characteristic frequency stimuli. Previous behavioral studies partially corroborate these findings in young adults, showing that nicotine selectively enhances auditory processing in difficult listening conditions. The present work extended previous work to include both young and older adults and assessed the nicotine effect on sound frequency and intensity discrimination. Hypotheses were that nicotine improves auditory performance and that the degree of improvement is inversely proportional to baseline performance. Young (19–23 years old) normal-hearing nonsmokers and elderly (61–80) nonsmokers with normal hearing between 500 and 2000 Hz received nicotine gum (6 mg) or placebo gum in a single-blind, randomized crossover design. Participants performed three experiments (frequency discrimination, frequency modulation identification, and intensity discrimination) before and after treatment. The perceptual differences were analyzed between pre- and post-treatment, as well as between post-treatment nicotine and placebo conditions as a function of pre-treatment baseline performance. Compared to pre-treatment performance, nicotine significantly improved frequency discrimination. Compared to placebo, nicotine significantly improved performance for intensity discrimination, and the improvement was more pronounced in the elderly with lower baseline performance. Nicotine had no effect on frequency modulation identification. Nicotine effects are task-dependent, reflecting possible interplays of subjects, tasks and neural mechanisms.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-301
Author(s):  
Nikolai Bernhard ◽  
Ulrich Gauger ◽  
Eugenia Romo Ventura ◽  
Florian C. Uecker ◽  
Heidi Olze ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. e597-e602
Author(s):  
Yazeed Al-shawi ◽  
Tamer A. Mesallam ◽  
Rayan Alfallaj ◽  
Turki Aldrees ◽  
Nouf Albakheet ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jantien L. Vroegop ◽  
J. Gertjan Dingemanse ◽  
Marc P. van der Schroeff ◽  
André Goedegebure

PurposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the effect of 3 hearing aid fitting procedures on provided gain of the hearing aid in bimodal cochlear implant users and their effect on bimodal benefit.MethodThis prospective study measured hearing aid gain and auditory performance in a cross-over design in which 3 hearing aid fitting methods were compared. Hearing aid fitting methods differed in initial gain prescription rule (NAL-NL2 and Audiogram+) and loudness balancing method (broadband vs. narrowband loudness balancing). Auditory functioning was evaluated by a speech-in-quiet test, a speech-in-noise test, and a sound localization test. Fourteen postlingually deafened adult bimodal cochlear implant users participated in the study.ResultsNo differences in provided gain and in bimodal performance were found for the different hearing aid fittings. For all hearing aid fittings, a bimodal benefit was found for speech in noise and sound localization.ConclusionOur results confirm that cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the contralateral ear substantially benefit from bimodal stimulation. However, on average, no differences were found between different types of fitting methods, varying in prescription rule and loudness balancing method.


2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 260-263

Background: Bacterial meningitis is one of the major factors in the etiology of acquired sensorineural hearing loss in children and adults. Cochlear implantation in these patients is challenging because of inner ear ossification and fibrosis, and this procedure sometimes achieves poorer outcomes in this scenario than with other causes of sensorineural hearing loss. There has been little research into the factors affecting the outcomes of this procedure. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of cochlear implantation in patients with postmeningitis profound sensorineural hearing loss and to evaluate the factors that affect the results. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of thirty patients who were diagnosed with post meningitis profound hearing loss and underwent cochlear implantation at Rajavithi Hospital between 2001 and 2016. Preoperative language status, duration of deafness, preoperative imaging, and degree of electrode insertion were recorded. Categories of auditory performance-II test (CAP-II) was evaluated in all cases, one year postoperative. Results: Thirty postmeningitis deafness patients underwent cochlear implantation. The median age at diagnosis of meningitis and age at implantation were 41 years (range 1 to 75) and 49.50 years (range 3 to 75), respectively. The median duration of deafness was 12 months (range 4 to 300), and the overall mean CAP-II at one year after surgery was 5.47±2.21. The postlinguistic group had a significantly higher CAP-II score than the prelinguistic one (p=0.006). Electrodes were successfully totally inserted in 19 patients (63.3%) and partially inserted in 11 (36.7%). The average CAP-II score in the group with fully-inserted electrodes was significantly higher than in the group with partially-inserted electrodes (p=0.045). There was no correlation between CAP-II score and age at meningitis diagnosis (p=0.069), age at time of surgery (p=0.105), duration of deafness (p=0.506), or preoperative CT (p=0.228) or MRI abnormality (p=0.078). Conclusion: Cochlear implantation in patients with postmeningitis profound hearing loss had high success rates and favorable outcomes. Preoperative language status and degree of electrode insertion were factors that affected auditory performance results. Keywords: Cochlear implantation, Postmeningitis hearing loss, Sensorineural hearing loss, Meningitis, Rajavithi Hospital


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document