A monosyllabic word test was administered to 114 postlingually-deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients at numerous intervals from two weeks to two years post-initial CI activation. Biographic/audiologic information, electrode position, and cognitive ability were examined to determine factors affecting CI outcomes. Results revealed that Duration of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss, Age at Implantation, CI Sound-field Threshold Levels, Percentage of Electrodes in Scala Vestibuli, Medio-lateral Electrode Position, Insertion Depth, and Cognition were among the factors that affected performance. Knowledge of how factors affect performance can influence counseling, device fitting, and rehabilitation for patients and may contribute to improved device design.

Differences in performance between unaided and aided performance (omnidirectional and directional) were measured using an open-fit behind-the-ear (BTE) hearing aid. Twenty-six subjects without prior experience with amplification were fitted bilaterally using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the fitting parameters were fine-tuned, based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between unaided and aided (omnidirectional and directional) were assessed by measuring reception thresholds for sentences (RTS in dB), using HINT sentences presented at 0 degrees with R-Space restaurant noise held constant at 65dBA and presented via eight loudspeakers set 45 degrees apart. In addition, the APHAB was administered to assess subjective impressions of the experimental aid. Results revealed that significant differences in RTS (in dB) were present between directional and omnidirectional performance, as well as directional and unaided performance. Aided omnidirectional performance, however, was not significantly different from unaided performance. These findings suggest for the hearing aids and experimental condition used in this study, a patient would require directional microphones in order to perform significantly better than unaided or aided with omnidirectional microphones, and that performance with an omnidirectional microphone would not be significantly better than unaided. Finally, the APHAB-aided scores were significantly better than unaided scores for the EC, BN, RV, and AV subscales indicating the subjects, on average, perceived the experimental aid to provide significantly better performance than unaided, and that aided performance was more aversive than unaided.

Differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were evaluated between two loudspeaker conditions (single loudspeaker at 180°; diffuse using eight loudspeakers set 45° apart) and two types of noise (steady-state HINT noise; R-Space™ restaurant noise). Twenty-five participants were fit bilaterally with Phonak Perseo hearing aids using the manufacturer's recommended procedure. After wearing the hearing aids for one week, the parameters were fine-tuned based on subjective comments. Four weeks later, differences in performance between omnidirectional and directional microphones were assessed using HINT sentences presented at 0° with the two types of background noise held constant at 65 dBA and under the two loudspeaker conditions.Results revealed significant differences in Reception Thresholds for Sentences (RTS in dB) where directional performance was significantly better than omnidirectional. Performance in the 180° condition was significantly better than the diffuse condition, and performance was significantly better using the HINT noise in comparison to the R-Space restaurant noise. In addition, results revealed that within each loudspeaker array, performance was significantly better for the directional microphone. Looking across loudspeaker arrays, however, significant differences were not present in omnidirectional performance, but directional performance was significantly better in the 180° condition when compared to the diffuse condition. These findings are discussed in terms of results reported in the past and counseling patients on the potential advantages of directional microphones as the listening situation and type of noise changes.

Fitting amplification to a patient with Ménière's disease (MD) can present several challenges to the dispensing audiologist. These challenges include the presence of fluctuating hearing loss, a rising audiometric configuration, unilateral or asymmetrical hearing loss, reduced dynamic range, and reduced word-recognition scores. The presence of any one of these characteristics could create obstacles for a successful hearing aid fit. The presence of most if not all of these characteristics in a single patient can readily challenge the skills of even the most experienced dispensing audiologist. In addition to the audiometric challenges, this patient population has the added psychological problems associated with feeling ill due to the nausea secondary to vertiginous attacks and the anxiety associated with the unpredictable nature of the course of these attacks. This paper summarizes numerous strategies and technologies that could be implemented by the audiologist to address these unique challenges and provide a greater opportunity for a successful hearing aid fit. These suggestions include (1) advantages offered by digital signal processing; (2) using directional microphones and assistive listening devices to improve speech recognition in noise; (3) using wireless hearing aids as well as the bone anchored hearing aid; (4) counseling patients on the realistic expectations from amplification in noisy listening situations and for those with poor speech recognition; (5) using multiple programs for patients with fluctuating hearing loss; and (6) offering suggestions on programming the frequency-gain/output response for a rising configuration.

This case study describes a 45 year old female with bilateral, profound sensorineural hearing loss due to Meniere’s disease. She received her first cochlear implant in the right ear in 2008 and the second cochlear implant in the left ear in 2010. The case study examines the enhancement to speech recognition, particularly in noise, provided by bilateral cochlear implants. Speech recognition tests were administered prior to obtaining the second implant and at a number of test intervals following activation of the second device. Speech recognition in quiet and noise as well as localization abilities were assessed in several conditions to determine bilateral benefit and performance differences between ears. The results of the speech recognition testing indicated a substantial improvement in the patient’s ability to understand speech in noise and her ability to localize sound when using bilateral cochlear implants compared to using a unilateral implant or an implant and a hearing aid. In addition, the patient reported considerable improvement in her ability to communicate in daily life when using bilateral implants versus a unilateral implant. This case suggests that cochlear implantation is a viable option for patients who have lost their hearing to Meniere’s disease even when a number of medical treatments and surgical interventions have been performed to control vertigo. In the case presented, bilateral cochlear implantation was necessary for this patient to communicate successfully at home and at work.