Using Machine Learning and Multifaceted Preoperative Measures to Predict Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes: A Prospective Pilot Study

Overview

Journal Ear Hear

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2024 Sep 6

PMID 39238093

Authors

Ankita Patro

Patrick J Lawrence

Terrin N Tamati

Xia Ning

Aaron C Moberly

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To use machine learning and a battery of measures for preoperative prediction of speech recognition and quality of life (QOL) outcomes after cochlear implant (CI) surgery.

Design: Demographic, audiologic, cognitive-linguistic, and QOL predictors were collected from 30 postlingually deaf adults before CI surgery. K-means clustering separated patients into groups. Reliable change index scores were computed for speech recognition and QOL from pre-CI to 6 months post-CI, and group differences were determined.

Results: Clustering yielded three groups with differences in reliable change index for sentence recognition. One group demonstrated low baseline sentence recognition and only small improvements post-CI, suggesting a group "at risk" for limited benefits. This group showed lower pre-CI scores on verbal learning and memory and lack of musical training.

Conclusions: Preoperative assessments can prognosticate CI recipients' postoperative performance and identify individuals at risk for experiencing poor sentence recognition outcomes, which may help guide counseling and rehabilitation.

References

Lo C, McMahon C, Looi V, Thompson W . Melodic Contour Training and Its Effect on Speech in Noise, Consonant Discrimination, and Prosody Perception for Cochlear Implant Recipients. Behav Neurol. 2015; 2015:352869. PMC: 4606449. DOI: 10.1155/2015/352869. View

Beretta L, Santaniello A . Nearest neighbor imputation algorithms: a critical evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016; 16 Suppl 3:74. PMC: 4959387. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0318-z. View

Mcrackan T, Bauschard M, Hatch J, Franko-Tobin E, Droghini H, Nguyen S . Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope. 2017; 128(4):982-990. PMC: 5776066. DOI: 10.1002/lary.26738. View

Crowson M, Dixon P, Mahmood R, Lee J, Shipp D, Le T . Predicting Postoperative Cochlear Implant Performance Using Supervised Machine Learning. Otol Neurotol. 2020; 41(8):e1013-e1023. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002710. View

Zhan K, Lewis J, Vasil K, Tamati T, Harris M, Pisoni D . Cognitive Functions in Adults Receiving Cochlear Implants: Predictors of Speech Recognition and Changes After Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2019; 41(3):e322-e329. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002544. View

Moberly A, Castellanos I, Vasil K, Adunka O, Pisoni D . "Product" Versus "Process" Measures in Assessing Speech Recognition Outcomes in Adults With Cochlear Implants. Otol Neurotol. 2018; 39(3):e195-e202. PMC: 5807136. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001694. View

Pisoni D, Broadstock A, Wucinich T, Safdar N, Miller K, Hernandez L . Verbal Learning and Memory After Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults: Some New Findings with the CVLT-II. Ear Hear. 2017; 39(4):720-745. PMC: 6013309. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000530. View

Gfeller K, Turner C, Oleson J, Zhang X, Gantz B, Froman R . Accuracy of cochlear implant recipients on pitch perception, melody recognition, and speech reception in noise. Ear Hear. 2007; 28(3):412-23. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180479318. View

DeFreese A, Lindquist N, Shi L, Holder J, Berg K, Haynes D . The Impact of Daily Processor Use on Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes: Reexamining the Roles of Duration of Deafness and Age at Implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2023; 44(7):672-678. PMC: 10524754. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003920. View

10.

Holden L, Finley C, Firszt J, Holden T, Brenner C, Potts L . Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2013; 34(3):342-60. PMC: 3636188. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7. View

11.

Moberly A, Pisoni D, Tamati T . Audiovisual Processing Skills Before Cochlear Implantation Predict Postoperative Speech Recognition in Adults. Ear Hear. 2023; 45(3):617-625. PMC: 11025067. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001450. View

12.

Shafieibavani E, Goudey B, Kiral I, Zhong P, Jimeno-Yepes A, Swan A . Predictive models for cochlear implant outcomes: Performance, generalizability, and the impact of cohort size. Trends Hear. 2021; 25:23312165211066174. PMC: 8764462. DOI: 10.1177/23312165211066174. View

13.

Moberly A, Bates C, Harris M, Pisoni D . The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants. Otol Neurotol. 2016; 37(10):1522-1528. PMC: 5102802. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001211. View

14.

Schauwecker N, Tamati T, Moberly A . Predicting Early Cochlear Implant Performance: Can Cognitive Testing Help?. Otol Neurotol Open. 2024; 4(1):e050. PMC: 10962885. DOI: 10.1097/ONO.0000000000000050. View

15.

Kim H, Kang W, Park H, Lee J, Park J, Kim Y . Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults is Time-sensitive Towards Positive Outcome: Prediction using Advanced Machine Learning Techniques. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):18004. PMC: 6301958. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-36404-1. View

16.

Ray C, Pisoni D, Lu E, Kronenberger W, Moberly A . Preoperative Visual Measures of Verbal Learning and Memory and their Relations to Speech Recognition After Cochlear Implantation. Ear Hear. 2022; 43(3):993-1002. PMC: 9010345. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001155. View