Cochlear implantation is a viable treatment for patients with severe to profound hearing loss. We report the results of speech perception tests (numbers, monosyllables, and sentence tests) achieved with MED-EL's COMBI 40+ (C40+) cochlear implant after 12 months of use. These findings, which were taken from a larger German study, were similar to those of other studies of the C40+ implant. We also compared the differences in speech perception observed with the CIS PRO+ body-worn speech processor and the newer TEMPO+ behind-the-ear speech processor. Although these results were similar with respect to most of the measured parameters, the TEMPO+ processor had a distinct advantage during tests in noise.
References
1.
DormanMF, HannleyMT, DankowskiK, Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. Ear Hear1989;10:44–9.
2.
SpivakLG, WaltzmanSB. Performance of cochlear implant patients as a function of time. J Speech Hear Res1990;33:511–9.
3.
Tye-MurrayN, TylerRS, WoodworthGG, GantzBJ. Performance over time with a Nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant. Ear Hear1992;13:200–9.
4.
CohenNL, WaltzmanSB, FisherSG. A prospective, randomized study of cochlear implants. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cochlear Implant Study Group. N Engl J Med1993;328:233–7.
5.
HelmsJ, MullerJ, SchonF, Evaluation of performance with the COMBI 40 cochlear implant in adults: A multicentric clinical study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec1997;59:23–35.
6.
TylerRS, ParkinsonAJ, WoodworthGG, Performance over time of adult patients using the Ineraid or Nucleus cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am1997;102:508–22.
7.
GstoettnerW, AdunkaO, HamzaviJ, [Speech discrimination in post-lingually deaf patients with cochlear implants]. Wien Klin Wochenschr2000;112:487–91.
8.
ValimaaTT, SorriMJ. Speech perception after multichannel cochlear implantation in Finnish-speaking postlingually deafened adults. Scand Audiol2000;29:276–83.
9.
ZierhoferCM, HochmairIJ, HochmairES. The advanced COMBI 40+ cochlear implant. Am J Otol1997;18(6 Suppl):S37–8.
10.
OvchinnikovIM, BorodinAA. [Cochlear implantation with implant COMBI 40+ produced by MED-EL]. Vestn Otorinolaringol2001;(1):33–6.
11.
HamzaviJ, FranzP, BaumgartnerWD, GstoettnerW.Hearing performance in noise of cochlear implant patients versus severely-profoundly hearing-impaired patients with hearing aids. Audiology2001;40:26–31.
12.
HelmsJ, MullerJ, SchonF, Comparison of the TEMPO+ ear-level speech processor and the CIS PRO+ body-worn processor in adult MED-EL cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec2001;63:31–40.
13.
ZerbiM, LawsonDT, WilsonBS. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Tenth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project NO1-DC-5-2103. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 1998.
14.
LawsonDT, WilsonBS, ZerbiM, FinleyCC. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project NO1-DC-5-2103. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 1996.
15.
EddingtonDK, NoelVA, RabinowitzWM, Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Ninth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project NO1-DC-2-2402. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 1994.
16.
EddingtonDK, NoelVA, RabinowitzWM, Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Project NO1-DC-2-2402. Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health, 1994.
17.
Hochmair-DesoyerI, SchulzE, MoserL, SchmidtM.The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. Am J Otol1997; 18(6 Suppl):S83.
18.
GstoettnerWK, HamzaviJ, BaumgartnerWD. Speech discrimination scores of postlingually deaf adults implanted with the COMBI 40 cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol1998;118:640–5.
19.
WeichboldV.Comparison of speech recognition results from COMBI 40 patients versus COMBI 40+ patients. Presented at: the COMBI 40/40+ Workshop; Sept. 19, 2001; Kitzbuhel, Austria.
