Music and Quality of Life in Early-Deafened Late-Implanted Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Fuller, Christina D.; Mallinckrodt, Lisa; Maat, Bert; Başkent, Deniz; Free, Rolien

doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e31828f47dd

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…4 and Table 1) gained from their HA in the tests performed in this study (speech scores in quiet and noise). However, some important factors for life quality, such as music appreciation (Fuller et al 2013), were not evaluated here. Despite some bias due to the retrospective feature of this study, these results may be taken into consideration to improve clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: To compare speech perception outcomes between bilateral implantation (cochlear implants [CIs]) and bimodal rehabilitation (one CI on one side plus one hearing aid [HA] on the other side) and to explore the clinical factors that may cause asymmetric performances in speech intelligibility between the two ears in case of bilateral implantation. DESIGN: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects becoming CI/CI) was possible from this dataset. Further analyses were conducted on the CI/CI subgroup to investigate a number of factors, such as implantation side, duration of hearing loss, amount of residual hearing, and use of HAs that may explain asymmetric performances of this subgroup. RESULTS: Intelligibility ranked scores in quiet and in noise were significantly greater with both CI/CI and CI/HA than with a CI-alone group, and improvement with CI/CI (+11% and +16% in quiet and in noise, respectively) was significantly better than with CI/HA (+6% and +9% in quiet and in noise, respectively). From the CI/HA group, only subjects with ranked preoperative aided speech scores >60% performed as well as CI/CI participants. Furthermore, CI/CI subjects displayed significantly lower preoperative aided speech scores on average compared with that displayed by CI/HA subjects. Routine clinical data available from the present database did not explain the asymmetrical results of bilateral implantation. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study, based on basic speech audiometry (no lateralization cues), indicates that, on average, a second CI is likely to provide slightly better postoperative speech outcome than an additional HA for people with very low preoperative performance. These results may be taken into consideration to refine surgical indications for CIs. Design: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects bec...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four reports included ad hoc QoL instruments [Fuller et al, 2013;Lassaletta et al, 2006;Rembar et al, 2009;Zhao et al, 2008]. Of these, 2 studies used quantitative QoL questionnaires [Fuller et al, 2013;Zhao et al, 2008], 1 used a qualitative instrument [Rembar et al, 2009], and 1 used a combination qualitative and quantitative instrument [Lassaletta et al, 2006].…”

Section: Ad Hoc Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these, 2 studies used quantitative QoL questionnaires [Fuller et al, 2013;Zhao et al, 2008], 1 used a qualitative instrument [Rembar et al, 2009], and 1 used a combination qualitative and quantitative instrument [Lassaletta et al, 2006].…”

Section: Ad Hoc Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) [Cohen et al, 2004;Damen et al, 2007;Fuller et al, 2013;Klop et al, 2007;Looi et al, 2011;Olze et al, 2011 ], the Cochlear Implant Function Index (CIFI) [Fuller et al, 2013], the Speech, Spatial and Qualities Questionnaire (SSQ) [Fuller et al, 2013], Patient Quality of Life Form (PQLF) [Mo et al, 2005], Index Relative Questionnaire Form (IRQF) [Mo et al, 2005], the Hearing Participation Scale (HPS) [Hawthorne et al, 2004], and the Complete Intelligibility Spatiality Quality (CISQ) [Looi et al, 2011].…”

Section: Disease-specific Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CIFI is a tool developed to assess the auditory related function of CI users, in 6 fields of auditory functioning: reliance on visual assistance, telephone use, communication at work, "hearing" in noise, hearing in groups, and hearing in large room settings. The SSQ is a validated environmental and spatial hearing questionnaire that was developed to quantify the abilities of hearing-impaired people and CI users, particularly for speech perception and spatial hearing [Fuller et al, 2013].…”

Section: Disease-specific Instruments In Adultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To review evidence regarding the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation (CI) among children and adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Study Design: Narrative review. Methods: Publications related to quality of life (QoL) and costs of care in CI were acquired through searches in English-language databases. Studies were included if they had identified the HRQoL attainment, cost of care, cost-utility, or cost-effectiveness associated with CI. Results: 57 studies were critically reviewed. The QoL outcome metrics used in these articles were divided into 2 categories - generic and condition specific. In studies investigating children, many reported no significant difference in QoL attainment between CI recipients and normal-hearing peers. In adults, significant improvements in QoL after implantation and higher QoL than in their nonimplanted (hearing-aided) peers were frequently reported. Studies involving an older adult cohort reported significant improvement in QoL after implantation, which was often independent of audiological performance. Overall, the calculated cost-utility ratios consistently met the threshold of cost acceptance, indicating acceptable values for expenditures on CI. Conclusions: Considerable work has been done on the QoL attainment and health economic implications of CI. Unilateral CI across all age groups leads to reported sustained benefits in the recipients' overall and disease-specific QoL. With increased cost associated with bilateral CI, further study is needed to characterize its costs and benefits with respect to the recipients' health, well-being, and contributions to society.

show abstract

The Impact of Vocal Boost Manipulations on Musical Sound Quality for Cochlear Implant Users

Limb

Jiradejvong

et al. 2022

The Laryngoscope

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the impact of vocal boost manipulations on cochlear implant (CI) musical sound quality appraisals. Methods An anonymous, online study was distributed to 33 CI users. Participants listened to auditory tokens and assessed the musical quality of acoustic stimuli with vocal boosting and attenuation using a validated sound quality rating scale. Four versions of real‐world musical stimuli were created: a version with +9 dB vocal boost, a version with −9 dB vocal attenuation, a composite stimulus containing a 1,000 Hz low‐pass filter and white noise (“anchor”), and an unaltered version (“hidden reference”). Subjects listened to all four versions and provided ratings based on a 100‐point scale that reflected the perceived sound quality difference of the music clip relative to the reference excerpt. Results Vocal boost increased musical sound quality ratings relative to the reference clip (11.7; 95% CI, 1.62–21.8, p = 0.016) and vocal attenuation decreased musical sound quality ratings relative to the reference clip (28.5; 95% CI, 18.64–38.44, p < 0.001). When comparing the non‐musical training group and musical training group, there was a significant difference in musical sound quality rating scores for the vocal boost condition (21.2; 95% CI: 1.76–40.7, p = 0.028). Conclusions CI‐mediated musical sound quality appraisals are impacted by vocal boost and attenuation. Musically trained CI users to report greater musical sound quality enhancement with a vocal boost with respect to CI users with no musical training background. Implementation of front‐end vocal boost manipulations in music may improve sound quality and music appreciation among CI users. Level of Evidence 2 (Individual cohort study) Laryngoscope, 133:938–947, 2023

show abstract

Music and Quality of Life in Early-Deafened Late-Implanted Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation

A Retrospective Multicenter Study Comparing Speech Perception Outcomes for Bilateral Implantation and Bimodal Rehabilitation

Quality of Life and Cost-Effectiveness of Cochlear Implants: A Narrative Review

The Impact of Vocal Boost Manipulations on Musical Sound Quality for Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About