Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic<sup>®</sup>Convex and Digisonic<sup>®</sup>SP devices after a 1-year follow-up

Lazard, Diane S.; Bordure, Philippe; Lina-Granade, Geneviève; Magnan, Jacques; Meller, Renaud; Meyer, B.; Radafy, E.; Roux, Pierre-Eric; Gnansia, Dan; Péan, Vincent; Truy, Éric

doi:10.3109/00016481003769972

Cited by 27 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The large range of CI outcomes that we observed, as well as the mean performance, is consistent with previous reports from large-scale, international studies (13)(14)(15), indicating that the CI outcomes observed in the present study may be considered representative of the wider CI population.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Anderson

Wiggins

Kitterick

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

120

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that visual language is maladaptive for hearing restoration with a cochlear implant (CI) due to cross-modal recruitment of auditory brain regions. Rehabilitative guidelines therefore discourage the use of visual language. However, neuroscientific understanding of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation has been restricted due to incompatibility between established neuroimaging techniques and the surgically implanted electronic and magnetic components of the CI. As a solution to this problem, here we used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), a noninvasive optical neuroimaging method that is fully compatible with a CI and safe for repeated testing. The aim of this study was to examine cross-modal activation of auditory brain regions by visual speech from before to after implantation and its relation to CI success. Using fNIRS, we examined activation of superior temporal cortex to visual speech in the same profoundly deaf adults both before and 6 mo after implantation. Patients' ability to understand auditory speech with their CI was also measured following 6 mo of CI use. Contrary to existing theory, the results demonstrate that increased cross-modal activation of auditory brain regions by visual speech from before to after implantation is associated with better speech understanding with a CI. Furthermore, activation of auditory cortex by visual and auditory speech developed in synchrony after implantation. Together these findings suggest that cross-modal plasticity by visual speech does not exert previously assumed maladaptive effects on CI success, but instead provides adaptive benefits to the restoration of hearing after implantation through an audiovisual mechanism. cochlear implantation | cross-modal plasticity | functional near-infrared spectroscopy | superior temporal cortex | visual speech

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Anderson

Wiggins

Kitterick

et al. 2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

120

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They reflect the usual interaural difference of which the etiological factors are still unknown [Mosnier et al, 2009;Basura et al, 2009]. Average speech performance of the best ear, in quiet, obtained with the Binaural device was not different from that obtained with the Digisonic SP in an unilateral implantation (62 vs. 68%, Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.42 [Lazard et al, 2010]). Therefore, even though 12 electrodes on each side are available instead of 20 in the unilateral Digisonic SP implant, these results are consistent with previous studies reporting that 10-12 electrodes are sufficient to provide good speech understanding in quiet [ Fu et al, 1998;Throckmorton et al, 1999;Friesen et al, 2001].…”

Section: Speech Performance In Quiet and In Noisementioning

confidence: 78%

“…Signal Processing and Stimulation Similar to the monaural Digisonic SP implant, the Digisonic SP Binaural implant uses the MPIS speech coding strategy (Main Peaks Interleaved Sampling, Di Lella et al [2009]; Lazard et al [2010]). This strategy combines peak extraction and sequential stimulation.…”

Section: Color Version Available Onlinementioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Performance and Sound Localization Abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP Binaural Cochlear Implant Users

Verhaert

Lazard

Gnansia³

et al. 2012

Audiol Neurotol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this prospective study the outcome of the Digisonic® SP Binaural cochlear implant (CI), a device enabling electric stimulation of both cochleae by a single receiver, was evaluated in 14 postlingually deafened adults after 12 months of use. Speech perception was tested using French disyllabic words in quiet and in speech-shaped noise at +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Horizontal sound localization in quiet was tested using pink noise coming from 5 loudspeakers, from –90 to +90° along the azimuth. Speech scores in quiet were 76% (±19.5 SD) in the bilateral condition, 62% (±24 SD) for the better ear alone and 43.5% (±27 SD) for the poorer ear alone. Speech scores in noise were 60% (±27.5 SD), 46% (±28 SD) and 28% (±25 SD), respectively, in the same conditions. Statistical analysis showed a significant advantage of the bilateral use in quiet and in noise (p < 0.05 compared to the better ear). Significant spatial perception benefits such as summation effect (p < 0.05), head shadow effect (p < 0.0001) and squelch effect (p < 0.0005) were noted. Sound localization accuracy improved significantly when using the device in the bilateral condition with an average root mean square of 35°. Compared with published outcomes of usual bilateral cochlear implantation, this device could be a valuable alternative to two CIs. Prospective controlled trials, comparing the Digisonic SP Binaural CI with a standard bilateral cochlear implantation are mandatory to evaluate their respective advantages and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Other sound processing has been added, such as ADRO (adaptive dynamic range optimization) that selects the most information-rich part of the signal and restores it to the optimal part of the listener's dynamic range [Blamey, 2005]. Other modifications in stimulation rates [Di Lella et al, 2010] or settings [James et al, 2003] have been implemented by each manufacturer, bringing improvements in outcomes [Firszt et al, 2009;Lazard et al, 2010a]. Such modifications, by easing central deciphering of CI stimulation of the auditory nerve, should result in better speech understanding in the whole of the CI population, with a shift of the distribution toward higher speech perception scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients

Blamey

Artières²,

Başkent³

et al. 2012

Audiol Neurotol

Self Cite

549

495

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic^®Convex and Digisonic^®SP devices after a 1-year follow-up

Cited by 27 publications

References 19 publications

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Speech Performance and Sound Localization Abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP Binaural Cochlear Implant Users

Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic®Convex and Digisonic®SP devices after a 1-year follow-up

Cited by 27 publications

References 19 publications

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Adaptive benefit of cross-modal plasticity following cochlear implantation in deaf adults

Speech Performance and Sound Localization Abilities in Neurelec Digisonic® SP Binaural Cochlear Implant Users

Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic^®Convex and Digisonic^®SP devices after a 1-year follow-up