Objective: To evaluate the benefits of bilateral electrical stimulation for hearing-impaired adult subjects using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant in a multicenter study, and to compare and quantify performance on speech perception measures in quiet and in noise and localization ability for unilateral and bilateral cochlear implant use. Design: Repeated single subject measures were carried out for each subject, with each subject serving as their own control. Assessment of unilateral and bilateral listening conditions for performance on tests of speech comprehension and sound localization were performed. Speech comprehension measures were performed in quiet at 0 degree azimuth and in the presence of background noise simultaneously presented from the same speaker and spatially separated by 90 degrees, at S+45°N45°and at S−45°N+45°. Test materials included Freiburger monosyllabic words, Oldenburger sentences, and the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences. Tests of localization were performed in the horizontal plane with 12 speaker locations 30 degrees apart using a shortened sentence stimulus from the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences at two possible presentation levels of 55 and 70 dB sound pressure level for assessment of directionality. The binaural advantage provided by bilateral stimulation was calculated with respect to each ear separately, classified as either the better or poorer performing ear for each speech material in quiet and in noise test conditions. For localization of sound, the binaural advantage was compared with left and right ears separately. Paired comparisons for performance data in all conditions were carried out by considering measurements for each subject in different conditions as paired observations and applying the Student's t test to determine the statistical difference between the data sets. Setting: Tertiary referral centers with a cochlear implant program. Patients: Thirty-seven profoundly hearing-impaired adults were enrolled in the study, 22 simultaneously and 15 sequentially bilaterally implanted. All patients received the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant and used the Nucleus SPrint or ESPrit 3G speech processor, with the vast majority using the ACE speech coding strategy. Results: For spatially separated speech in noise conditions, an interaural performance advantage for the ear closest to the speech source (i.e., with a superior signal to noise ratio) compared with that for the ear closest to the noise source (i.e., with an inferior signal to noise ratio) is consistently demonstrated regardless of whether it is the better or poorer performing ear closest to the speech signal. This is referred to as a significant binaural head-shadow benefit, resulting in a mean improvement between −10 dB and −11.4 dB in the critical signal to noise ratio required for 50% speech comprehension for the Oldenburger sentences and a mean improvement in the maximum score of 42% to 55% for the ear closest to the speech signal over the ear farthest away for the Hochmair-Schulz-Moser sentences. Bilateral stimulation i...

The main aim of this study was to validate a new technique, neural response telemetry (NRT), for measuring the electrically evoked compound action potential in adult cochlear implant users via their Nucleus C124M implant. Thirty-eight adults were evaluated with a variety of measurement procedures with the NRT software. Electrically evoked compound action potentials were obtained in 31 of the 38 adults (81.6%) and in 132 of the 160 electrodes (82.5%) tested. In addition to validating this technique, we also established a set of default clinical test parameters.

No abstract

No abstract

The usual indication for a cochlear implant (CI) is acquired deafness in patients for whom conventional hearing aids are of no benefit. The question is whether CI is superior to the best conventional hearing aids for patients with some residual hearing, but who achieve only minimal speech recognition (< 30% in the Freiburg monosyllable word test at 70 dB (I) SPL) with optimal hearing aids. We report our experience with five patients with residual hearing who underwent cochlear implantation (Nucleus Mini 22 and 24) on the worse side. The patients were examined preoperatively and at 1, 6 and 12 months following activation of the implant. The Freiburg monosyllabic word test, the Göttingen sentence test and consonant recognition were used to assess postoperative results. All patients benefitted from CI when test scores were compared with preoperative ones. All patients achieved a score in the Freiburg monosyllabic word test of more than 60% at 70 dB (I) SPL 12 months post switch-on. Four patients achieved a score of more than 85% in the Göttingen sentence test. These results and the progress made in cochlear implant technology are an impetus to continue discussions of various considerations of criteria for cochlear implants and possibly extend these for patients with severe hearing impairment.