scholarly journals Self-Reported Spatial Hearing Abilities Across Different Cochlear Implant Profiles

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann E. Perreau ◽  
Hua Ou ◽  
Richard Tyler ◽  
Camille Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Hearing Ability ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Abilities

Purpose The goal of this study was to determine how self-reported spatial hearing abilities differ across various cochlear implant (CI) profiles and to examine the degree of subjective benefit following cochlear implantation across different groups of CI users. Method This was a retrospective study of subjective spatial hearing ability of CI recipients. The subjects consisted of 99 unilateral CI users, 49 bilateral CI users, 32 subjects with a CI and contralateral hearing aid (bimodal users), and 37 short-electrode CI users. All subjects completed the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (Tyler, Perreau, & Ji, 2009), a questionnaire assessing spatial hearing ability, after implantation, and a subset of the subjects completed the questionnaire pre- and postimplantation. Results Subjective spatial hearing ability was rated higher for the bilateral and short electrode CI users compared to the unilateral and bimodal users. There was no significant difference in subjective spatial hearing performance between the bilateral and short electrode CI users and the unilateral CI and bimodal users. A separate analysis of pre- and postimplant performance revealed that all CI groups reported significant improvements in spatial hearing ability after implantation. Conclusion This study suggests that there are substantial differences in perceived spatial hearing ability among unilateral and bimodal CI users compared with bilateral and short electrode CI users.

scholarly journals Speech Perception Changes in the Acoustically Aided, Nonimplanted Ear after Cochlear Implantation: A Multicenter Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1758
Author(s):  
Mario A. Svirsky ◽  
Arlene C. Neuman ◽  
Jonathan D. Neukam ◽  
Annette Lavender ◽  
Margaret K. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Multicenter Study ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Residual Hearing ◽  
Quality Signal ◽  
Postoperative Changes

In recent years there has been an increasing percentage of cochlear implant (CI) users who have usable residual hearing in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear, typically aided by acoustic amplification. This raises the issue of the extent to which the signal presented through the cochlear implant may influence how listeners process information in the acoustically stimulated ear. This multicenter retrospective study examined pre- to postoperative changes in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear, the implanted ear, and both together. Results in the latter two conditions showed the expected increases, but speech perception in the nonimplanted ear showed a modest yet meaningful decrease that could not be completely explained by changes in unaided thresholds, hearing aid malfunction, or several other demographic variables. Decreases in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear were more likely in individuals who had better levels of speech perception in the implanted ear, and in those who had better speech perception in the implanted than in the nonimplanted ear. This raises the possibility that, in some cases, bimodal listeners may rely on the higher quality signal provided by the implant and may disregard or even neglect the input provided by the nonimplanted ear.

Impact of Cochlear Implantation on Neurocognitive Subdomains in Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Christiane Völter ◽  
Lisa Götze ◽  
Imme Haubitz ◽  
Janine Müther ◽  
Stefan Dazert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Verbal Fluency ◽  
Homogeneous Population ◽  
Delayed Recall ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Age-related hearing loss affects about one-third of the population worldwide. Studies suggest that hearing loss may be linked to cognitive decline and auditory rehabilitation may improve cognitive functions. So far, the data are limited, and the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. The study aimed to analyze the impact of cochlear implantation on cognition in a large homogeneous population of hearing-impaired adults using a comprehensive non-auditory cognitive assessment with regard to normal-hearing (NH) subjects. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> Seventy-one cochlear implant (CI) candidates with a postlingual, bilateral severe or profound hearing loss aged 66.3 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.2) and 105 NH subjects aged 65.96 years (SD 9.4) were enrolled. The computer-based neurocognitive tool applied included 11 subtests covering attention (M3), short- and long-term memory (recall and delayed recall), working memory (0- and 2-back, Operation Span [OSPAN] task), processing speed (Trail Making Test [TMT] A), mental flexibility (TMT B), inhibition (cFlanker and iFlanker), and verbal fluency. CI patients underwent a neurocognitive testing preoperatively as well as 12 months postoperatively. Impact of hearing status, age, gender, and education on cognitive subdomains was studied. Additionally, after controlling for education and age, cognitive performance of CI subjects (<i>n</i> = 41) was compared to that of NH (<i>n</i> = 34). <b><i>Results:</i></b> CI users achieved significantly better neurocognitive scores 12 months after cochlear implantation than before in most subtests (M3, [delayed] recall, 2-back, OSPAN, iFlanker, and verbal fluency; all <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05) except for the TMT A and B. A significant correlation could be found between the postoperative improvement in speech perception and in the attentional task M3 (<i>p</i> = 0.01). Hearing status (<i>p</i> = 0.0006) had the strongest effect on attention, whereas education had a high impact on recall (<i>p</i> = 0.002), OSPAN (<i>p</i> = 0.0004), and TMT A (<i>p</i> = 0.005) and B (<i>p</i> = 0.003). Inhibition was mainly age-dependent with better results in younger subjects (<i>p</i> = 0.016). Verbal fluency was predicted by gender as females outperformed men (<i>p</i> = 0.009). Even after controlling for age and education NH subjects showed a significantly better performance than CI candidates in the recall (<i>p</i> = 0.03) and delayed recall (<i>p</i> = 0.01) tasks. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups anymore. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Impact of cochlear implantation on neurocognitive functions differs according to the cognitive subdomains. Postoperatively, CI recipients performed as good as age- and education-matched NH subjects.

Amount of Frequency Compression in Bimodal Cochlear Implant Users Is a Poor Predictor for Audibility and Spatial Hearing

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Snandan Sharma ◽  
Waldo Nogueira ◽  
A. John van Opstal ◽  
Josef Chalupper ◽  
Lucas H. M. Mens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Sound Localization ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Frequency Compression ◽  
Knee Point ◽  
Localization Performance

Purpose Speech understanding in noise and horizontal sound localization is poor in most cochlear implant (CI) users with a hearing aid (bimodal stimulation). This study investigated the effect of static and less-extreme adaptive frequency compression in hearing aids on spatial hearing. By means of frequency compression, we aimed to restore high-frequency audibility, and thus improve sound localization and spatial speech recognition. Method Sound-detection thresholds, sound localization, and spatial speech recognition were measured in eight bimodal CI users, with and without frequency compression. We tested two compression algorithms: a static algorithm, which compressed frequencies beyond the compression knee point (160 or 480 Hz), and an adaptive algorithm, which aimed to compress only consonants leaving vowels unaffected (adaptive knee-point frequencies from 736 to 2946 Hz). Results Compression yielded a strong audibility benefit (high-frequency thresholds improved by 40 and 24 dB for static and adaptive compression, respectively), no meaningful improvement in localization performance (errors remained > 30 deg), and spatial speech recognition across all participants. Localization biases without compression (toward the hearing-aid and implant side for low- and high-frequency sounds, respectively) disappeared or reversed with compression. The audibility benefits provided to each bimodal user partially explained any individual improvements in localization performance; shifts in bias; and, for six out of eight participants, benefits in spatial speech recognition. Conclusions We speculate that limiting factors such as a persistent hearing asymmetry and mismatch in spectral overlap prevent compression in bimodal users from improving sound localization. Therefore, the benefit in spatial release from masking by compression is likely due to a shift of attention to the ear with the better signal-to-noise ratio facilitated by compression, rather than an improved spatial selectivity. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16869485

scholarly journals Aiding and Occluding the Contralateral Ear in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (09) ◽  
pp. 567-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Runge ◽  
Jamie Jensen ◽  
David R. Friedland ◽  
Ruth Y. Litovsky ◽  
Sergey Tarima
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Contralateral Ear

Background: The challenges associated with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) are due primarily to temporal impairment and therefore tend to affect perception of low- to midfrequency sounds. A common treatment option for severe impairment in ANSD is cochlear implantation, and because the degree of impairment is unrelated to degree of hearing loss by audiometric thresholds, this population may have significant acoustic sensitivity in the contralateral ear. Clinically, the question arises as to how we should treat the contralateral ear in this population when there is acoustic hearing—should we plug it, amplify it, implant it, or leave it alone? Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of acute amplification and plugging of the contralateral ear compared to no intervention in implanted children with ANSD and aidable contralateral hearing. It was hypothesized that due to impaired temporal processing in ANSD, contralateral acoustic input would interfere with speech perception achieved with the cochlear implant (CI) alone; therefore, speech perception performance will decline with amplification and improve with occlusion. Research Design: Prospective within-subject comparison. Adaptive speech recognition thresholds (SRTs) for monosyllable and spondee word stimuli were measured in quiet and in noise for the intervention configurations. Study Sample: Nine children treated at the Medical College of Wisconsin Koss Cochlear Implant Program participated in the study. Inclusion criteria for this study were children diagnosed with ANSD who were unilaterally implanted, had aidable hearing in the contralateral ear (defined as a three-frequency pure-tone average of ≤80 dB HL), had at least 1 yr of cochlear implant experience, and were able to perform the speech perception task. Intervention: We compared SRT with the CI alone to SRTs with interventions of cochlear implant with a contralateral hearing aid (CI+HA) and cochlear implant with a contralateral earplug (CI+plug). Data Collection and Analysis: SRTs were measured and compared within subjects across listening conditions. Within-subject comparisons were analyzed using paired t-tests, and analyses of predictive variables for effects of contralateral intervention were analyzed using linear regression. Results: Contrary to the hypothesis, the bimodal CI+HA configuration showed a significant improvement in mean performance over the CI-alone configuration in quiet (p = .04). In noise, SRTs were obtained for six subjects, and no significant bimodal benefit was observed (p = .09). There were no consistent effects of occlusion observed across subjects and stimulus conditions. Degree of bimodal benefit showed a significant relationship with performance with the CI alone, with greater bimodal benefit associated with poorer CI-alone performance (p = .01). This finding, however, was limited by floor effects. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that children with ANSD who are experienced cochlear implant users may benefit from contralateral amplification, particularly for moderate cochlear implant performers. It is unclear from these data whether long-term contralateral hearing aid use in real-world situations would ultimately benefit this population; however, a hearing aid trial is recommended with assessment of bimodal benefit over time. These data may help inform clinical guidelines for determining optimal hearing configurations for unilaterally implanted children with ANSD, particularly when considering candidacy for sequential cochlear implantation.

scholarly journals Cochlear implantation restores cortical processing for spatial hearing in asymmetric hearing loss

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chadlia Karoui ◽  
Kuzma Strelnikov ◽  
Pierre Payoux ◽  
Anne-Sophie Salabert ◽  
Chris James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Spatial Hearing ◽  
Cortical Activity ◽  
Asymmetry Index ◽  
Hemispheric Dominance ◽  
Sound Localisation ◽  
Monaural Stimulation ◽  
Asymmetric Hearing Loss

In asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), the normal pattern of contralateral hemispheric dominance for monaural stimulation is modified, with a shift towards the hemisphere ipsilateral to the better ear. The extent of this shift has been shown to relate to sound localisation deficits. In this study, we examined whether cochlear implantation to treat AHL can restore the normal functional pattern of auditory cortical activity and whether this relates to improved sound localisation. We recruited 10 subjects with a cochlear implant for AHL (AHL-CI) and 10 normally-hearing controls. The participants performed a voice/non-voice discrimination task with binaural and monaural presentation of the sounds, and the cortical activity was measured using positron emission tomography (PET) brain imaging with a H215O tracer. The auditory cortical activity was found to be lower in the AHL-CI participants for all of the conditions. A cortical asymmetry index was calculated and showed that a normal contralateral dominance was restored in the AHL-CI patients for the non-implanted ear, but not for the ear with the cochlear implant. It was found that the contralateral dominance for the non-implanted ear strongly correlated with sound localisation performance (rho = 0.8, p < 0.05). We conclude that the restoration of binaural mechanisms in AHL-CI subjects reverses the abnormal lateralisation pattern induced by the deafness, and that this leads to improved spatial hearing. Our results suggest that cochlear implantation fosters the rehabilitation of binaural excitatory/inhibitory cortical interactions, which could enable the reconstruction of the auditory spatial selectivity needed for sound localisation.

scholarly journals Benefits of Localization and Speech Perception with Multiple Noise Sources in Listeners with a Short-Electrode Cochlear Implant

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. 044-051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille C. Dunn ◽  
Ann Perreau ◽  
Bruce Gantz ◽  
Richard S. Tyler
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Noise Sources ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Array Performance

Background: Research suggests that for individuals with significant low-frequency hearing, implantation of a short-electrode cochlear implant may provide benefits of improved speech perception abilities. Because this strategy combines acoustic and electrical hearing within the same ear while at the same time preserving low-frequency residual acoustic hearing in both ears, localization abilities may also be improved. However, very little research has focused on the localization and spatial hearing abilities of users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate localization abilities for listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant who continue to wear hearing aids in both ears. A secondary purpose was to document speech perception abilities using a speech-in-noise test with spatially separate noise sources. Research Design: Eleven subjects that utilized a short-electrode cochlear implant and bilateral hearing aids were tested on localization and speech perception with multiple noise locations using an eight-loudspeaker array. Performance was assessed across four listening conditions using various combinations of cochlear implant and/or hearing aid use. Results: Results for localization showed no significant difference between using bilateral hearing aids and bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant. However, there was a significant difference between the bilateral hearing aid condition and the implant plus use of a contralateral hearing aid for all 11 subjects. Results for speech perception showed a significant benefit when using bilateral hearing aids plus the cochlear implant over use of the implant plus only one hearing aid. Conclusion: Combined use of both hearing aids and the cochlear implant show significant benefits for both localization and speech perception in noise for users with a short-electrode cochlear implant. These results emphasize the importance of low-frequency information in two ears for the purpose of localization and speech perception in noise.

Racial Disparities in Adult Cochlear Implantation

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110273
Author(s):  
Geethanjeli N. Mahendran ◽  
Tyler Rosenbluth ◽  
Miriam Featherstone ◽  
Esther X. Vivas ◽  
Douglas E. Mattox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Word Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Black Patients ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Primary Service ◽  
White Patients

Objective To compare rates of cochlear implant referral and cochlear implantation across different races and to compare audiometric profiles of these patients. Study Design Retrospective study. Setting Academic tertiary care institution. Methods Demographic and audiometric data were collected for patients who underwent cochlear implant evaluation or cochlear implantation from 2010 to 2020. Results A total of 504 patients underwent cochlear implant evaluation; 388 met cochlear implant candidacy criteria, and 258 underwent implantation. Of the patients referred for cochlear implant evaluation, 68.5% were White, 18.5% were Black, and 12.3% were Asian, while the institution’s primary service area is 46.9% White, 42.3% Black, and 7.7% Asian (P < .001). Black patients referred for cochlear implant evaluation had significantly worse hearing (mean pure-tone average [PTA] 84.5 dB, 26.1% word recognition) than White patients (mean PTA 78.2 dB, P = .005; 35.7% word recognition, P = .015) and Asians patients (mean PTA 77.9 dB, P = .04; 36.5% word recognition, P = .04). Black patients who underwent cochlear implant evaluation also had significantly worse AzBio scores than White patients: 24.5% versus 36.7% (P = .003). There was no significant difference in cochlear implantation rates between Black and White candidates (P = .06). Conclusion Black patients undergo cochlear implant evaluation and cochlear implantation at rates disproportionately lower than expected based on local demographics. In addition, Black patients have significantly worse hearing at the time of cochlear implant referral than White and Asian patients. Identifying and increasing awareness of these disparities are essential steps to improving cochlear implant access for potentially disadvantaged populations.

scholarly journals Factors affecting outcome of cochlear implant: an observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (10) ◽  
pp. 1811
Author(s):  
Parth Patni ◽  
Deepak Dalmia ◽  
Udayanila T. ◽  
Harish Katakdhond ◽  
Karthika Bhagavan
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Auditory Deprivation ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cochlear Implant Surgery

<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aim and objectives of the study was to evaluate various factors affecting outcome in cochlear implant surgery.<strong></strong></p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hospital based retrospective observational study in which 51 patients who underwent cochlear implant surgery from July 2017 to January 2019 were evaluated at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai using 3 parameters i.e. Revised CAP score (CAP), meaningful auditory integration scale (MAIS), speech intelligibility rating (SIR) at various intervals postoperatively and outcome was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>It was found that the postoperative mean scores in all age groups were comparable but not significant at 3, 6 and 9 months interval while the difference was statistically significant at 12 and 24 months interval post implantation with less than 2 years age group performing better than other age groups patients with less than 2 years duration of auditory deprivation, the mean scores were found to be statistically significant at 12 and  24 months implantation Relationship to common causes such as prenatal infections, low birth weight, prolonged labour, hyperbilirubinemia, meningitis and consanguineous marriage were considered but not significant. No significant difference was observed in parent’s education level, urban-rural population to the outcome of cochlear implantation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Two most important factors that affect the outcome cochlear implantation are the age at implantation and the duration of auditory deprivation. Other factors are important but not significant and do not affect the outcome significantly.</p>

scholarly journals Correlation between behaviorally measured comfort (c) levels and electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds (ESRT) in children with unilateral cochlear implant

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-206
Author(s):  
Roshani Mishra ◽  
Aparna Nandurkar
Keyword(s):  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Pediatric Population ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Acoustic Stimulation ◽  
Comfort Level ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Stapedius Reflex

Introduction: Decrease in the lower age limit for paediatric cochlear implantation and increasing records of cochlear implantation in children with associated impairments demand quick and easily available objective measurements to provide MAP in these children as their speech and language ability may not be adequate to provide clear cut explanation about comfort level. Providing adequate amount of acoustic stimulation in this golden period of life (i.e. 0-2 years) is important in ensuring the proper utilization of acoustic cues. Findings of adult population cannot be directly applied to younger children and till date there is no Indian study reporting relationship between Electrically Evoked Stapedial Reflex Thresholds (ESRT) and behavioural Comfort levels, especially in pediatric population. Aim: The present study aimed to assess the correlation between behaviorally measured comfort (C) levels and Electrically Evoked Stapedius Reflex Thresholds (ESRT) in children with unilateral cochlear implant. Method: Children (n=40) with age range of 4-12 years, who received the same type of CI and electrode configuration, were selected for the study. Participants were divided into two groups – younger and older - based on their chronological age. Behavioural C-level measurement and ESRT measurement were done after tympanometry for both the groups. Correlation between the two measures was obtained and comparison between the two groups was done. Results and discussion: Recorded ESRT was consistently higher than the behaviorally obtained C-level for both the groups. The correlation between ESRT and C-level varies from moderate to very strong and strong to very strong for the younger and older groups respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the correlations for the two age groups. Conclusions: High correlations were found between the ESRT and behaviorally obtained C-levels. Thus ESRT can be utilized as a tool for programming in younger implant recipients.

Postlingually Deaf Adults of All Ages Derive Equal Benefits from Unilateral Multichannel Cochlear Implant

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 637-643 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward Park ◽  
David B. Shipp ◽  
Joseph M. Chen ◽  
Julian M. Nedzelski ◽  
Vincent Y.W. Lin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Cochlear Implant ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Cochlear Implantation ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Perceived Quality Of Life ◽  
Deaf Adults

Background: Controversy still exists regarding the impact of age on speech recognition following cochlear implant in postlingually deaf adults. In some studies elderly recipients did not perform as well as younger patients on standard speech recognition tests. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that cochlear implantation improves quality of life, as measured by self-administered questionnaires, but the sample sizes of these studies have been relatively small, thus making age stratification a challenge. Purpose: The primary objective was to assess whether the age at which a patient receives a unilateral cochlear implant affects improvements in speech recognition scores and perceived quality of life. A secondary objective was to determine whether preoperative use of hearing aids correlates with improvement in speech recognition and perceived quality of life after cochlear implantation. Research Design: A retrospective study in a tertiary referral center. Patients: A total of 161 postlingually deaf adults, who were divided based on age (<50, 50–65, >65) and on prior hearing aid(s) use. Intervention: All patients received a unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. Data Collection and Analysis: Speech recognition was quantified by percent correct scores on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences delivered in a quiet setting only (HINT%), and quality of life was quantified by the Hearing Handicap Inventory (HHI) before and 1 yr after cochlear implantation. Results: Speech recognition, as measured by HINT%, improved significantly and to similar extents in all three age groups following cochlear implantation. Similarly, quality of life as quantified by HHI improved markedly and to similar extents in all age groups. Whether hearing aids were used pre-implant, or whether the cochlear implant (CI) was implanted on the same side or contralateral to the hearing aid side, had no substantial effect on the patients’ performances on either speech recognition or quality of life. Moreover, there were no statistically significant correlations between pre-implant speech recognition scores and pre-implant quality of life scores or between postimplant speech recognition scores and postimplant quality of life scores. Conclusion: The findings of the present study demonstrate that cochlear implantation improves HINT% and HHI scores to similar extents across all age groups. This finding suggests that elderly patients may derive speech recognition and quality of life benefits similar to those of younger patients and that age should not be an essential factor in the determination of CI candidacy. Furthermore, prior use of a hearing aid, and its location in relation to the cochlear implant, does not influence the extent of improvement in speech recognition or quality of life measurements following cochlear implantation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document