Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time

Lazard, Diane S.; Vincent, C.; Venail, F.; Heyning, Paul Van de; Truy, Éric; Sterkers, Olivier; Skarżyński, Henryk; Schauwers, Karen; O’Leary, Stephen; Mawman, Deborah; Maat, Bert; Kleine-Punte, Andrea; Huber, Alexander; Green, Kevin; Govaerts, Paul; Fraysse, Bernard; Dowell, Richard C.; Dillier, Norbert; Burke, Elaine; Beynon, Andy J.; Bergeron, François; Başkent, Deniz; Artières, Françoise; Blamey, Peter J.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048739

Cited by 378 publications

(390 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

349

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It was already expected due to different technologies and applicability of the electronic device, as shown in the literature. The CI is the best option for severe to profound deafness, with great effectiveness for oral language and speech perception development, as demonstrated by many studies [23] There was no significant difference among different brands of CI, between groups A and B, as well there was no difference regarding the etiology of hearing loss, what concurs with Lazard et al who also did not observe differences regarding auditory outcomes among the different brands of CI, but found differences regarding the etiology of hearing loss [7].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…There is no statistical evidence related to the samples of this study regarding sex and age at the time of surgery, as published by Lazard et al [7] and Blamey et al [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…A negative correlation was observed between the duration of sound deprivation and audiometric gain (by means of speech perception tests post-operatively), although it does not contraindicate CI surgery to be performed [6] [7] [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Influence of Sound Deprivation on Audiologic Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation

Amaral¹,

Reis²,

Pauna³

et al. 2018

IJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cochlear implant is a prosthesis that is capable to replace listening capability among patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Many studies suggest a negative relationship among duration of sound deprivation and audiometric gain (by means of speech perception test) after cochlear implantation. We evaluated surgical and audiologic results among post-lingual deafened adults, in different times of sound deprivation, and correlated with social isolation, presence of vertigo or tinnitus, and the speech therapy yield, between pre-and post-operative stages. A retrospective study was conducted on patients with post-lingual hearing loss, aged over 18 years old who underwent cochlear implant surgery in a public hospital from 2004 to 2014. Audiological, sociodemographic questionnaire, and manifestations of vertigo and tinnitus, during pre-and post-operative stages, were compared and correlating to the different periods of sound deprivation. Two groups were studied. The group A was composed of 38 participants (14 male and 24 female) with sound deprivation of less than 10 years; and group B was composed of 17 participants (8 male and 9 female) with sound deprivation longer than 10 years. We found no differences regarding age, sex, duration of sound deprivation, mean pure-tone audiometric results (pre-and post-surgery), and speech perception tests (pre-operatively). After one year of the surgery, we observed a significant difference between both groups, with a better performance to group A. The results of speech perception test, after cochlear implantation in group B, were worse than the results obtained in group A, although these correlations are not determinant whether to perform cochlear implant surgery or not.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…There is no statistical evidence related to the samples of this study regarding sex and age at the time of surgery, as published by Lazard et al [7] and Blamey et al [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Influence of Sound Deprivation on Audiologic Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation

Amaral¹,

Reis²,

Pauna³

et al. 2018

IJCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Role of development of an auditory spatial map CI listeners are an inherently inhomogeneous population, which is a result of factors such as hearing history, surgery, type of device, etc. (Lazard et al, 2012;Blamey et al, 2013). Therefore inhomogeneous psychophysical responses were expected and seen in these data.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Internalized elevation perception of simple stimuli in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners

Thakkar

Goupell

2014

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In normal-hearing (NH) listeners, elevation perception is produced by the spectral cues imposed by the pinna, head, and torso. Elevation perception in cochlear-implant (CI) listeners appears to be non-existent; this may be a result of poorly encoded spectral cues. In this study, an analog of elevation perception was investigated by having 15 CI and 8 NH listeners report the intracranial location of spectrally simple signals (single-electrode or bandlimited acoustic stimuli, respectively) in both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Thirteen CI listeners and all of the NH listeners showed an association between place of stimulation (i.e., stimulus frequency) and perceived elevation, generally responding with higher elevations for more basal stimulation. This association persisted in the presence of a randomized temporal pitch, suggesting that listeners were not associating pitch with elevation. These data provide evidence that CI listeners might perceive changes in elevation if they were presented stimuli with sufficiently salient elevation cues.

show abstract

“…The analyses did not show any effect of side on speech performance, even at later ages when the right ear advantage for speech may increase (Martin & Jerger 2005). From the literature, the left hemispheric dominance for speech does not seem to be modified by deafness: (1) this hemispheric specialization is preserved in sign language processing MacSweeney et al 2008); (2) postlingual deaf subjects, even after years of profound deafness, preserve the left dominance for phonology processing (Lazard et al 2010(Lazard et al , 2012c; and (3) lipreading also shares left auditory cortical areas (Calvert & Campbell 2003;Hall et al 2005;Lazard et al 2014).…”

Section: Everyday Clinical Data Cannot Explain Asymmetrical Results Imentioning

confidence: 76%

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

Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time

Cited by 378 publications

References 43 publications

The Influence of Sound Deprivation on Audiologic Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation

The Influence of Sound Deprivation on Audiologic Outcomes after Cochlear Implantation

Internalized elevation perception of simple stimuli in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About