Cochlear Implantation in Elderly Patients with Residual Hearing

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the range of hearing levels in a cochlear implant (CI) elderly population receiving electric-acoustic-stimulation (EAS) or electric-stimulation (ES) alone. The investigation evaluates the degree of hearing preservation (HP) and the speech comprehension resulting from EAS or ES-only to identify audiometric factors that predict adequate EAS and ES use. We analyzed the pure tone audiometry and speech perception in quiet and noise preoperatively and 12-months after activation of 89 elderly adults (age of 65 years old or older), yielding in total 97 CIs. Thirty-two (33.1%) patients were potential EAS candidates preoperatively, of which 18 patients used EAS at the time of first fitting and the other 14 patients continued to use their residual hearing for EAS at 12-months. Post-treatment, patients with EAS system and ES-only users’ with longer electrodes showed better results in monosyllable word scores in quiet than ES-only users with shorter electrodes. A similar trend was revealed for the speech recognition in noise. Patients with an EAS system benefit from maintaining their natural residual hearing. Nevertheless, strict preoperative patient selection is warranted particularly in elderly patients, in whom the hearing thresholds for EAS indication differ slightly from that in younger adults.

Effects of the Configuration of Hearing Loss on Consonant Perception between Simulated Bimodal and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing

Background Cochlear implant technology allows for acoustic and electric stimulations to be combined across ears (bimodal) and within the same ear (electric acoustic stimulation [EAS]). Mechanisms used to integrate speech acoustics may be different between the bimodal and EAS hearing, and the configurations of hearing loss might be an important factor for the integration. Thus, differentiating the effects of different configurations of hearing loss on bimodal or EAS benefit in speech perception (differences in performance with combined acoustic and electric stimulations from a better stimulation alone) is important. Purpose Using acoustic simulation, we determined how consonant recognition was affected by different configurations of hearing loss in bimodal and EAS hearing. Research Design A mixed design was used with one between-subject variable (simulated bimodal group vs. simulated EAS group) and one within-subject variable (acoustic stimulation alone, electric stimulation alone, and combined acoustic and electric stimulations). Study Sample Twenty adult subjects (10 for each group) with normal hearing were recruited. Data Collection and Analysis Consonant perception was unilaterally or bilaterally measured in quiet. For the acoustic stimulation, four different simulations of hearing loss were created by band-pass filtering consonants with a fixed lower cutoff frequency of 100 Hz and each of the four upper cutoff frequencies of 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 Hz. For the electric stimulation, an eight-channel noise vocoder was used to generate a typical spectral mismatch by using fixed input (200–7,000 Hz) and output (1,000–7,000 Hz) frequency ranges. The effects of simulated hearing loss on consonant recognition were compared between the two groups. Results Significant bimodal and EAS benefits occurred regardless of the configurations of hearing loss and hearing technology (bimodal vs. EAS). Place information was better transmitted in EAS hearing than in bimodal hearing. Conclusion These results suggest that configurations of hearing loss are not a significant factor for integrating consonant information between acoustic and electric stimulations. The results also suggest that mechanisms used to integrate consonant information may be similar between bimodal and EAS hearing.