Electrocochleography and cognition are important predictors of speech perception outcomes in noise for cochlear implant recipients

被引:0
作者
Amit Walia
Matthew A. Shew
Dorina Kallogjeri
Cameron C. Wick
Nedim Durakovic
Shannon M. Lefler
Amanda J. Ortmann
Jacques A. Herzog
Craig A. Buchman
机构
[1] Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis,Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery
来源
Scientific Reports | / 12卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Although significant progress has been made in understanding outcomes following cochlear implantation, predicting performance remains a challenge. Duration of hearing loss, age at implantation, and electrode positioning within the cochlea together explain ~ 25% of the variability in speech-perception scores in quiet using the cochlear implant (CI). Electrocochleography (ECochG) responses, prior to implantation, account for 47% of the variance in the same speech-perception measures. No study to date has explored CI performance in noise, a more realistic measure of natural listening. This study aimed to (1) validate ECochG total response (ECochG-TR) as a predictor of performance in quiet and (2) evaluate whether ECochG-TR explained variability in noise performance. Thirty-five adult CI recipients were enrolled with outcomes assessed at 3-months post-implantation. The results confirm previous studies showing a strong correlation of ECochG-TR with speech-perception in quiet (r = 0.77). ECochG-TR independently explained 34% of the variability in noise performance. Multivariate modeling using ECochG-TR and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores explained 60% of the variability in speech-perception in noise. Thus, ECochG-TR, a measure of the cochlear substrate prior to implantation, is necessary but not sufficient for explaining performance in noise. Rather, a cognitive measure is also needed to improve prediction of noise performance.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 108 条
[1]  
Gantz BJ(1993)Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 102 909-916
[2]  
Woodworth GG(1996)Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants Audiol. Neurotol. 1 293-306
[3]  
Knutson JF(2007)Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults Cochlear Implants Int. 8 1-11
[4]  
Abbas PJ(2012)Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: A new conceptual model over time PLoS ONE 7 36-47
[5]  
Tyler RS(2013)Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: An update with 2251 patients Audiol. Neurotol. 18 445-455
[6]  
Blamey P(1999)Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: Effects of implantation criteria Otol. Neurotol. 20 617-624
[7]  
Green KM(2019)Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes Otol. Neurotol. 40 177-188
[8]  
Lazard DS(1989)The origin of the low-frequency microphonic in the first cochlear turn of guinea-pig Hear. Res. 39 370-377
[9]  
Blamey P(1998)Are inner or outer hair cells the source of summating potentials recorded from the round window? J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 1507-1515
[10]  
Rubinstein JT(2012)Intraoperative round window recordings to acoustic stimuli from cochlear implant patients Otol. Neurotol. 33 64-71