Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences.

ObjectiveTo test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors.Study DesignRetrospective multi-centre study.MethodsData from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses.ResultsThe significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL.ConclusionsA new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance.

Hearing threshold level data were available for 12 patients recruited from 6 of the centres. Median increases in hearing threshold levels were 23, 27 and 33 dB for the frequencies 125, 250 and 500 Hz, respectively. These median increases include the data for two patients who had total loss of residual hearing due to difficulties encountered during surgery. "Cochlear view" X-ray images indicated that the depth of insertion varied between 300 and 430 degrees, despite modest variations in the length of the electrode inserted (17-19 mm). The insertion angle had some influence on the preservation of residual hearing at frequencies of 250-500 Hz. Six of the 12 patients retained sufficient hearing for effective use of an ipsilateral ITE hearing aid (< or = 80 dB HL at 125 and 250 Hz; < or = 90 dB HL at 500 Hz). Word recognition scores in quiet were improved from 10% to 30% with the cochlear implant plus ipsilateral hearing aid in 3 patients who had at least 3 months postoperative experience. Signal:noise ratio thresholds for sentence recognition were improved by up to 3 dB. Patients reported that they experienced greatly improved sound quality and preferred to use the two devices together.

Cross-modal reorganization in the auditory cortex has been reported in deaf individuals. However, it is not well understood whether this compensatory reorganization induced by auditory deprivation recedes once the sensation of hearing is partially restored through a cochlear implant. The current study used electroencephalography source localization to examine cross-modal reorganization in the auditory cortex of post-lingually deafened cochlear implant users. We analysed visual-evoked potentials to parametrically modulated reversing chequerboard images between cochlear implant users (n = 11) and normal-hearing listeners (n = 11). The results revealed smaller P100 amplitudes and reduced visual cortex activation in cochlear implant users compared with normal-hearing listeners. At the P100 latency, cochlear implant users also showed activation in the right auditory cortex, which was inversely related to speech recognition ability with the cochlear implant. These results confirm a visual take-over in the auditory cortex of cochlear implant users. Incomplete reversal of this deafness-induced cortical reorganization might limit clinical benefit from a cochlear implant and help explain the high inter-subject variability in auditory speech comprehension.

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...