Earphone and Aided Word Recognition Differences in Cochlear Implant Candidates

McRackan, Theodore R.; Fabie, Joshua E.; Burton, Jane; Munawar, Suqrat; Holcomb, Meredith A.; Dubno, Judy R.

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000001873

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results presented here, obtained at a specialized ENT clinic with an associated hearing-aid and cochlear-implant centre, are confirmed by other work [12,15,18,19,21] at similar centres. Nonetheless, there remains some uncertainty as to whether these results are representative of the overall hearing-aid provision to a wider user spectrum.…”

Section: Examplesupporting

confidence: 87%

Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms

Dörfler

Hocke²,

Hast

et al. 2020

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Improvement of speech perception in quiet is an important goal of hearing aid provision. In practice, results are highly variable. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between type and extent of hearing loss (audiogram type), maximum word recognition score, and aided speech perception. Materials and methods Pure tone and speech audiometric data of 740 ears in 370 patients were reviewed. All subjects visited our hearing center for hearing aid evaluation between 2012 and 2017. The maximum word recognition score (WRS max ) and the monosyllabic speech recognition score with hearing aids, WRS 65 (HA) were analyzed for 10 different standard audiogram types. Results The WRS 65 (HA) with hearing aids for different degrees of hearing loss is, within error boundaries, comparable to previous investigations and shows a difference of 10–20 percentage points to the WRS max . This difference tends to be larger for flat and moderately sloping audiograms compared to steep-sloping audiograms. The ratio WRS 65 (HA)/WRS max can be interpreted as an efficiency factor for hearing aid provision, since it relates speech recognition with hearing aids to the maximally achievable information carrying capacity of the hearing impaired. Conclusion The expectation regarding hearing aid provision has to be adjusted according to maximum word recognition score, the derived quality measures, degree of hearing loss, and audiogram type.

show abstract

Section: Examplesupporting

confidence: 87%

Speech recognition with hearing aids for 10 standard audiograms

Dörfler

Hocke²,

Hast

et al. 2020

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, we and others have investigated the relationships between basic audiometric measures, including pure‐tone audiogram (PTA), hearing aid (HA) scores, and the maximum word recognition score (WRS) for phonemically balanced monosyllabic words (WRS max ; also often referred to as PB max ) 5–9 . There is a group of patients with large speech‐perception gaps 5,6,8–10 . This gap is defined as a difference between aided score and WRS max 5,6 or a clinically comparable measure 8–10 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is a group of patients with large speech‐perception gaps 5,6,8–10 . This gap is defined as a difference between aided score and WRS max 5,6 or a clinically comparable measure 8–10 . Such HA users represent a population where a reliable individual outcome prediction is most desirable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implantation in Candidates With Moderate‐to‐Severe Hearing Loss and Poor Speech Perception

Hoppe

Hocke²,

Hast

et al. 2020

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis To determine the improvement in word recognition score (WRS65) after cochlear implant (CI) surgery in hearing aid (HA) users with preoperative hearing threshold ≤80 dB HL and inadequate speech recognition scores with HA. Secondarily, to identify predictive factors for WRS65 with a CI (WRS65[CI]) 6 months after surgery, derived from the standard German CI preoperative assessment. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Methods Retrospective review of all adult patients who received a Nucleus cochlear implant in the ear, nose, and throat department of the University Hospital of Erlangen between January 2010 and April 2019. The inclusion criteria were a preoperative hearing threshold ≤80 dB HL in the ear to receive the implantation, German as the native language, and at least 6 months postimplantation care at our center. Results The inclusion criteria were met by 128 patients. All but two patients (98.4%) showed a significant improvement, WRS65(CI) versus WRS65 with an (HA) (WRS65[HA]), of at least 15 percentage points (pp). The median improvement was 55 pp with a median WRS65(CI) of 70%. Three preoperative audiometric measures, the maximum word recognition score, age at implantation, and WRS65(HA) were identified as predictive factors for WRS65(CI). For three‐quarters of the CI recipients, the score was not poorer than 12 pp below the predicted WRS65(CI). Conclusions For patients with a hearing loss ≤80 dB HL, cochlear implantation should be considered when speech perception with an HA is insufficient. The prediction model can support counseling in this patient group. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 131:E940–E945, 2021

show abstract

“…In aktuellen Untersuchungen [10,11,15,[21][22][23] von Hörgerätenutzern findet sich ein beträchtlicher Anteil von Nutzern, sogar mit mittelgradigem Hörverlust, die nicht in der Lage sind, ihre als mEV gemessene ICC in Sprachverstehen mit Hörgeräten bei Umgangssprachpegeln umzusetzen. Diese Diskrepanz ist zumindest bei Nutzern mit einer höhergradigen Schwerhörigkeit erklärbar: Das mEV wird nahe der Unbehaglichkeitsschwelle gemessen [10].…”

Section: Präoperatives Sprachverstehenunclassified