» Articles » PMID: 32397101

Listening in Noise Remains a Significant Challenge for Cochlear Implant Users: Evidence from Early Deafened and Those with Progressive Hearing Loss Compared to Peers with Normal Hearing

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 May 14
PMID 32397101
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Cochlear implants (CIs) are the state-of-the-art therapy for individuals with severe to profound hearing loss, providing them with good functional hearing. Nevertheless, speech understanding in background noise remains a significant challenge. The purposes of this study were to: (1) conduct a novel within-study comparison of speech-in-noise performance across ages in different populations of CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners using an adaptive sentence-in-noise test, and (2) examine the relative contribution of sensory information and cognitive-linguistic factors to performance. Forty CI users (mean age 20 years) were divided into "early-implanted" <4 years ( = 16) and "late-implanted" >6 years ( = 11), all prelingually deafened, and "progressively deafened" ( = 13). The control group comprised 136 NH subjects (80 children, 56 adults). Testing included the Hebrew Matrix test, word recognition in quiet, and linguistic and cognitive tests. Results show poorer performance in noise for CI users across populations and ages compared to NH peers, and age at implantation and word recognition in quiet were found to be contributing factors. For those recognizing 50% or more of the words in quiet ( = 27), non-verbal intelligence and receptive vocabulary explained 63% of the variance in noise. This information helps delineate the relative contribution of top-down and bottom-up skills for speech recognition in noise and can help set expectations in CI counseling.

Citing Articles

Auditory sequence learning with degraded input: children with cochlear implants ('nature effect') compared to children from low and high socio-economic backgrounds ('nurture effect').

Cohen S, Perez R, Kishon-Rabin L Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):7872.

PMID: 40050361 PMC: 11885848. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-92454-2.


Inner Ear Gene Therapy: An Overview from Bench to Bedside.

Gadenstaetter A, Krumpoeck P, Landegger L Mol Diagn Ther. 2024; 29(2):161-181.

PMID: 39625555 PMC: 11861411. DOI: 10.1007/s40291-024-00759-1.


A real-world evaluation of the clinical benefits of improved sound processor technology among Chinese cochlear implant users: A focus on Cochlear Nucleus 7.

Deng X, Wu C, Wu L, Lu J, Zhang J PLoS One. 2024; 19(9):e0307044.

PMID: 39226302 PMC: 11371209. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307044.


Peripheral Neural Synchrony in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users.

He S, Skidmore J, Bruce I, Oleson J, Yuan Y Ear Hear. 2024; 45(5):1125-1137.

PMID: 38503720 PMC: 11333193. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001502.


Improved speech intelligibility in the presence of congruent vibrotactile speech input.

Schulte A, Marozeau J, Ruhe A, Buchner A, Kral A, Innes-Brown H Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):22657.

PMID: 38114599 PMC: 10730903. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48893-w.


References
1.
Ching T, van Wanrooy E, Dillon H, Carter L . Spatial release from masking in normal-hearing children and children who use hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am. 2011; 129(1):368-75. PMC: 3055291. DOI: 10.1121/1.3523295. View

2.
Pisoni D, Kronenberger W, Roman A, Geers A . Measures of digit span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after more than 10 years of cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2011; 32(1 Suppl):60S-74S. PMC: 3080130. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ffd58e. View

3.
Akeroyd M . Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47 Suppl 2:S53-71. DOI: 10.1080/14992020802301142. View

4.
BOOTHROYD A . Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am. 1968; 43(2):362-7. DOI: 10.1121/1.1910787. View

5.
Kos M, Deriaz M, Guyot J, Pelizzone M . What can be expected from a late cochlear implantation?. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008; 73(2):189-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.10.009. View