Default frequency filters of cochlear implant (CI) devices assign frequency information irrespective of intracochlear position, resulting in varying degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch. Substantial mismatch negatively influences speech recognition in postlingually deafened CI recipients, and acclimatization may be particularly challenging for older adults due to effects of aging on the auditory pathway. The present report investigated the influence of mismatch and age at implantation on speech recognition within the initial 6 months of CI use.
Study Design
Retrospective review.
Setting
Tertiary referral center.
Subjects and Methods
Forty-eight postlingually deafened adult CI recipients of lateral wall electrode arrays underwent postoperative computed tomography to determine angular insertion depth of each electrode contact. Frequency-to-place mismatch was determined by comparing spiral ganglion place frequencies to default frequency filters. Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) scores in the CI-alone condition at 1, 3, and 6 months postactivation were compared to the degree of mismatch at 1500 Hz and age at implantation.
Results
Younger adult CI recipients experienced more rapid growth in speech recognition during the initial 6 months postactivation. Greater degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch were associated with poorer performance, yet older listeners were not particularly susceptible to this effect.
Conclusions
While older adults are not necessarily more sensitive to detrimental effects of frequency-to-place mismatch, other factors appear to limit early benefit with a CI in this population. These results suggest that minimizing mismatch could optimize outcomes in adult CI recipients across the life span, which may be particularly beneficial in the elderly considering auditory processing deficits associated with advanced age.
HardyM. The length of the organ of corti in man. Am J Anat. 1938;63:291-311.
2.
WurfelWLanfermannHLenarzTMajdaniO. Cochlear length determination using cone beam computed tomography in a clinical setting. Hear Res. 2014;316:65-72.
3.
MengJLiSZhangFLiQQinZ. Cochlear size and shape variability and implications in cochlear implantation surgery. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(9):1307-1313.
4.
DhanasinghAJollyC. An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res. 2017;356:93-103.
5.
SvirskyMAFitzgeraldMBSagiEGlassmanEK. Bilateral cochlear implants with large asymmetries in electrode insertion depth: implications for the study of auditory plasticity. Acta Otolaryngol. 2015;135(4):354-363.
6.
SvirskyMASilveiraANeuburgerHTeohSWSuarezH. Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004;124(4):381-386.
7.
SagiEFuQJGalvinJJIIISvirskyMA. A model of incomplete adaptation to a severely shifted frequency-to-electrode mapping by cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2010;11(1):69-78.
8.
ReissLATurnerCWKarstenSAGantzBJ. Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience. 2014;256:43-52.
9.
TanCTMartinBSvirskyMA. Pitch matching between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a contralateral ear with residual hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(3):187-199.
10.
ANSI/ASA. American National Standard Methods for Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 1997.
11.
CanfarottaMWDillonMTBussEPillsburyHCBrownKDO’ConnellBP. Frequency-to-place mismatch: characterizing variability and the influence on speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear. In press.
12.
LabadieRFCarrascoVNGilmerCHPillsburyHCIII. Cochlear implant performance in senior citizens. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2000;123(4):419-424.
13.
LundinKNasvallAKoblerSLindeGRask-AndersenH. Cochlear implantation in the elderly. Cochlear Implants Int. 2013;14(2):92-97.
14.
DillonMTBussEAdunkaMC, et al. Long-term speech perception in elderly cochlear implant users. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;139(3):279-283.
15.
TunPAMcCoySWingfieldA. Aging, hearing acuity, and the attentional costs of effortful listening. Psychol Aging. 2009;24(3):761-766.
16.
SalthouseTA. Aging and measures of processing speed. Biol Psychol. 2000;54(1-3):35-54.
17.
LyxellBAnderssonJArlingerSBredbergGHarderHRonnbergJ. Verbal information-processing capabilities and cochlear implants: implications for preoperative predictors of speech understanding. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 1996;1(3):190-201.
18.
HeydebrandGHaleSPottsLGotterBSkinnerM. Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults’ spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation. Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12(4):254-264.
19.
MoberlyACVasilKJWucinichTL, et al. How does aging affect recognition of spectrally degraded speech [published online October16, 2018]? Laryngoscope.
20.
WinnMBChatterjeeMIdsardiWJ. The use of acoustic cues for phonetic identification: effects of spectral degradation and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;131(2):1465-1479.
21.
GroseJHHallJWIIIBussE. Temporal processing deficits in the pre-senescent auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2305-2315.
22.
GoupellMJGaskinsCRShaderMJWalterEPAndersonSGordon-SalantS. Age-related differences in the processing of temporal envelope and spectral cues in a speech segment. Ear Hear. 2017;38(6):e335-e342.
23.
ChatelinVKimEJDriscollC, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly. Otol Neurotol. 2004;25(3):298-301.
24.
BeyeaJAMcMullenKPHarrisMS, et al. Cochlear implants in adults: effects of age and duration of deafness on speech recognition. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(9):1238-1245.
25.
WilliamsonRAPytyniaKOghalaiJSVrabecJT. Auditory performance after cochlear implantation in late septuagenarians and octogenarians. Otol Neurotol. 2009;30(7):916-920.
26.
LinFRChienWWLiLClarrettDMNiparkoJKFrancisHW. Cochlear implantation in older adults. Medicine (Baltimore). 2012;91(5):229-241.
27.
O’ConnellBPCakirAHunterJB, et al. Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1016-1023.
28.
CarlsonMLBreenJTGiffordRH, et al. Cochlear implantation in the octogenarian and nonagenarian. Otol Neurotol. 2010;31(8):1343-1349.
29.
ParkEShippDBChenJMNedzelskiJMLinVY. Postlingually deaf adults of all ages derive equal benefits from unilateral multichannel cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(10):637-643.
30.
CanfarottaMWDillonMTBussEPillsburyHCBrownKDO’ConnellBP. Validating a new tablet-based tool in the determination of cochlear implant angular insertion depth. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(8):1006-1010.
31.
StakhovskayaOSridharDBonhamBHLeakePA. Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):220-233.
StudebakerGA. A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res. 1985;28(3):455-462.
34.
R Core Team. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2019.
35.
BlameyPArndtPBergeronF, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 1996;1(5):293-306.
36.
BlameyPArtieresFBaskentD, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(1):36-47.
37.
GantzBJWoodworthGGKnutsonJFAbbasPJTylerRS. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1993;102(12):909-916.
38.
GreenKMBhattYMawmanDJ, et al. Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int. 2007;8(1):1-11.
39.
LazardDSVincentCVenailF, et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48739.
40.
HoldenLKFinleyCCFirsztJB, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):342-360.
41.
WinnM. Rapid release from listening effort resulting from semantic context, and effects of spectral degradation and cochlear implants. Trends Hear. 2016;20:2331216516669723.
42.
HochmairIArnoldWNoppPJollyCMullerJRolandP. Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003;123(5):612-617.
43.
YukawaKCohenLBlameyPPymanBTungvachirakulVO’LearyS. Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurootol. 2004;9(3):163-172.
44.
BuchmanCADillonMTKingERAdunkaMCAdunkaOFPillsburyHC. Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol. 2014;35(10):1773-1779.
45.
ChakravortiSNobleJHGiffordRH, et al. Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2019;40(5):617-624.
46.
BuchnerAIllgAMajdaniOLenarzT. Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0174900.
DunnCCPerreauAGantzBTylerRS. Benefits of localization and speech perception with multiple noise sources in listeners with a short-electrode cochlear implant. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(1):44-51.
49.
HelbigSVan de HeyningPKieferJ, et al. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI(100) implant system using the FLEX(EAS) electrode array. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011;131(6):585-595.
50.
GiffordRHDormanMF. The psychophysics of low-frequency acoustic hearing in electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS) and bimodal patients. J Hear Sci. 2012;2(2):33-44.
51.
GiffordRHDormanMFSheffieldSWTeeceKOlundAP. Availability of binaural cues for bilateral implant recipients and bimodal listeners with and without preserved hearing in the implanted ear. Audiol Neurootol. 2014;19(1):57-71.
52.
GiffordRHDormanMFSkarzynskiH, et al. Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments. Ear Hear. 2013;34(4):413-425.
53.
RaderTFastlHBaumannU. Speech perception with combined electric-acoustic stimulation and bilateral cochlear implants in a multisource noise field. Ear Hear. 2013;34(3):324-332.
54.
DillonMTBussEAdunkaOFBuchmanCAPillsburyHC. Influence of test condition on speech perception with electric-acoustic stimulation. Am J Audiol. 2015;24(4):520-528.
55.
PillsburyHCIIIDillonMTBuchmanCA, et al. Multicenter US clinical trial with an electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) system in adults: final outcomes. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(3):299-305.
56.
GantzBJDunnCOlesonJHansenMParkinsonATurnerC. Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: final outcomes. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(4):962-973.
57.
SuhlingMCMajdaniOSalcherR, et al. The impact of electrode array length on hearing preservation in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(8):1006-1015.
58.
O’ConnellBPHunterJBHaynesDS, et al. Insertion depth impacts speech perception and hearing preservation for lateral wall electrodes. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(10):2352-2357.
59.
JiamNTGilbertMCookeD, et al. Association between flat-panel computed tomographic imaging-guided place-pitch mapping and speech and pitch perception in cochlear implant users. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145(2):109-116.
60.
JiamNTPearlMSCarverCLimbCJ. Flat-panel CT imaging for individualized pitch mapping in cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol. 2016;37(6):672-679.
61.
LenarzMSonmezHJosephGBuchnerALenarzT. Long-term performance of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(1):112-118.
