The Speech,Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability-handicap relationship, along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: Comparing self-assessed and measured abilities

Patients fitted with one (CI) versus two (CI+CI) cochlear implants, and those fitted with one implant who retain a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear (CI+HA), were compared using the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004). The CI+CI profile yielded significantly higher ability ratings than the CI profile in the spatial hearing domain, and on most aspects of other qualities of hearing (segregation, naturalness, and listening effort). A subset of patients completed the SSQ prior to implantation, and the CI+CI profile showed consistently greater improvement than the CI profile across all domains. Patients in the CI+HA group self-rated no differently from the CI group, post-implant. Measured speech perception and localization performance showed some parallels with the self-rating outcomes. Overall, a unilateral CI provided significant benefit across most hearing functions reflected in the SSQ. Bilateral implantation offered further benefit across a substantial range of those functions.     

Utility of bilateral acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to quantify the benefit provided by having access to amplified acoustic hearing in the implanted ear for use in combination with contralateral acoustic hearing and the electrical stimulation provided by the cochlear implant. Design: Measures of spatial and non-spatial hearing abilities were obtained to compare performance obtained with different configurations of acoustic hearing in combination with electrical stimulation. In the combined listening condition participants had access to bilateral acoustic hearing whereas the bimodal condition used acoustic hearing contralateral to the implanted ear only. Experience was provided with each of the listening conditions using a repeated-measures A-B-B-A experimental design. Study sample: Sixteen post-linguistically hearing-impaired adults participated in the study. Results: Group mean benefit was obtained with use of the combined mode on measures of speech recognition in coincident speech in noise, localization ability, subjective ratings of real-world benefit, and musical sound quality ratings. Conclusions: Access to bilateral acoustic hearing after cochlear implantation provides significant benefit on a range of functional measures.     

Unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants and the implant-plus-hearing-aid profile: comparing self-assessed and measured abilities

Patients fitted with one (CI) versus two (CI+CI) cochlear implants, and those fitted with one implant who retain a hearing aid in the non-implanted ear (CI+HA), were compared using the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) (Gatehouse & Noble, 2004). The CI+CI profile yielded significantly higher ability ratings than the CI profile in the spatial hearing domain, and on most aspects of other qualities of hearing (segregation, naturalness, and listening effort). A subset of patients completed the SSQ prior to implantation, and the CI+CI profile showed consistently greater improvement than the CI profile across all domains. Patients in the CI+HA group self-rated no differently from the CI group, post-implant. Measured speech perception and localization performance showed some parallels with the self-rating outcomes. Overall, a unilateral CI provided significant benefit across most hearing functions reflected in the SSQ. Bilateral implantation offered further benefit across a substantial range of those functions.     

Validation of a French translation of the speech,spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) and comparison with other language versions

Objective: To validate a French version of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ), a subjective evaluation of patients’ hearing disability, and to assess SSQ reproducibility across different language versions. Design: The SSQ was translated in accordance with the principles of the ‘Universalist approach’ of cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome instruments. Scores from a normal-hearing and a hearing-impaired population were compiled and compared, whenever possible, with data from the literature, collected using other language versions. Study sample: One hundred normal-hearing subjects and 230 hearing-impaired subjects. Results: Good reproducibility of scores and inter-subject variability were obtained between several language versions, even if scores found using the French version were slightly lower than those obtained using Dutch or English versions. A comparison of factor analysis outcomes between the English and French versions confirmed good conceptual equivalence across languages and robustness of the SSQ for use in international settings. The three main subscales (speech, spatial, and qualities) confirmed their usefulness in assessing different aspects of hearing disability. Conclusion: This study validated a French-language version of the SSQ, and assessed the reproducibility of the SSQ across subject groups, administration modes, and different countries/languages, confirming its potential as an international standard for hearing disability evaluation.     

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ)

The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) is designed to measure a range of hearing disabilities across several domains. Particular attention is given to hearing speech in a variety of competing contexts, and to the directional, distance and movement components of spatial hearing. In addition, the abilities both to segregate sounds and to attend to simultaneous speech streams are assessed, reflecting the reality of hearing in the everyday world. Qualities of hearing experience include ease of listening, and the naturalness, clarity and identifiability of different speakers, different musical pieces and instruments, and different everyday sounds. Application of the SSQ to 153 new clinic clients prior to hearing aid fitting showed that the greatest difficulty was experienced with simultaneous speech streams, ease of listening, listening in groups and in noise, and judging distance and movement. SSQ ratings were compared with an independent measure of handicap. After differences in hearing level were controlled for, it was found that identification, attention and effort problems, as well as spatial hearing problems, feature prominently in the disability handicap relationship,. along with certain features of speech hearing. The results implicate aspects of temporal and spatial dynamics of hearing disability in the experience of handicap. The SSQ shows promise as an instrument for evaluating interventions of various kinds, particularly (but not exclusively) those that implicate binaural function.     

言语、空间与听觉质量量表在老年听力损失者助听器验配中的应用

目的探讨言语、空间与听觉质量量表(speech,spatial and qualities of hearing scale,SSQ)用于老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器的效果评估作用。方法以100例老年感音神经性听力损失者(60~90岁)为研究对象,采用横断面研究和前瞻性研究,其中,无助听器使用经验者44例(75.8±8.1岁,气导纯音平均听阈59.8±13.3 dB HL)、有助听器使用经验者34例(77.5±6.3岁,气导纯音平均听阈64.5±17.8 dB HL,助听器佩戴时间大于三个月)进行横断面研究;22例(74.3±8.6岁,气导纯音平均听阈58.1±12.6 dB HL)首次配戴助听器者进行前瞻性研究;二组参与横断面研究者进行一次SSQ评估,前瞻性研究组分别在助听前和佩戴助听器1个月后进行二次SSQ评估,均采用面对面问答方式用SSQ量表评估三组受试者在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面的变化。结果横断面研究结果显示,有助听经验组SSQ问卷言语理解(97.29±23.43分)、空间听觉(131.94±19.27分)、声音质量(143.53±20.31分)和总分(372.76±51.92分)均显著高于无助听经验组(分别为58.66±30.13、99.41±37.09、108.09±43.28、266.16±78.18分)。前瞻性研究结果显示,受试者初次佩戴助听器一个月后的SSQ问卷言语理解(106.27±13.86分)、空间听觉(136.00±14.09分)、声音质量(151.73±13.91分)和总分(394.00±34.70分)均显著高于佩戴助听器前(分别为65.64±21.89、115.09±17.17、111.91±25.41、292.64±45.58分),横断面研究和前瞻性研究结果均显示,老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间声源定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著改善(P<0.05)。结论SSQ量表可以有效评估老年听力损失患者助听器使用效果;老年听力损失患者佩戴助听器后在言语理解能力、空间定位能力和声音聆听质量方面均有显著提高。     

Measuring listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with unilateral or bilateral cochlear implants or normal hearing

Abstract

Objectives

To compare the listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults using implants versus their peers with normal hearing when these two groups are achieving similar speech perception scores. The study also aimed to compare listening effort expended by adolescents and young adults with bilateral cochlear implants when using two implants versus one.

Methods

Eight participants with bilateral cochlear implants and eight with normal hearing aged 10–22 years were included. Using a dual-task paradigm, participants repeated consonant–nucleus–consonant (CNC) words presented in noise and performed a visual matching task. Signal-to-noise ratios were set individually to ensure the word perception task was challenging but manageable for all. Reduced performance on the visual task in the dual-task condition relative to the single-task condition was indicative of the effort expended on the listening task.

Results

The cochlear implant group, when using bilateral implants, expended similar levels of listening effort to the normal hearing group when the two groups were achieving similar speech perception scores. For three individuals with cochlear implants, and the group, listening effort was significantly reduced with bilateral compared to unilateral implants.

Discussion

The similar amount of listening effort expended by the two groups indicated that a higher signal-to-noise ratio overcame limitations in the auditory information received or processed by the participants with implants. This study is the first to objectively compare listening effort using two versus one cochlear implant. The results provide objective evidence that reduced listening effort is a benefit that some individuals gain from bilateral cochlear implants.     

Perceptual benefit and functional outcomes for children using sequential bilateral cochlear implants

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additional perceptual benefit provided to children through the use of two cochlear implants in comparison to one after 6 to 13 mo experience with sequential bilateral implants. DESIGN: A second cochlear implant was received by 11 children. The principal selection criteria were being age 4 to 15 yr with a bilateral profound hearing loss and being a consistent user of a first implant with a commitment to use of a second implant. Horizontal localization was assessed by using pink noise bursts presented from a 180 degrees , eight-loudspeaker array. Speech perception was assessed by using a four-alternative forced-choice spondee test, with speech presented from in front and adaptive background noise presented from 90 degrees to the left or right. Both tests were completed in the first implant alone and bilateral conditions. A questionnaire measured the pre- to postoperative change in the parent's ratings of the child's performance in specific listening situations. Items were related to speech perception, spatial hearing, or other qualities of hearing. Regular parental reports of device use, attitude and performance were collected. Most subjects were assessed at 6 mo after surgery, with two assessed at 13 mo. RESULTS: The 11 subjects demonstrated a great range of outcomes. For one subject, only anecdotal data were collected. Speech perception testing indicated that when noise was presented ipsilateral to the first implant, 8 of 10 subjects showed a benefit in the bilateral condition. None of the nine subjects tested showed a benefit when noise was contralateral to the first implant. Generally, there was no benefit to localization in the bilateral condition. For eight subjects, postoperative performance ratings were generally higher than preoperative ratings, particularly in the spatial hearing section. Anecdotal reports indicated that most subjects had a negative attitude toward, and gained limited experience with, the second implant alone. The subjects developed a range of speech perception skills, from detection to conversation level. Regarding the use of bilateral implants, attitudes were more positive and device use was consistent for eight subjects, and six parents reported some evidence of improved performance in daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Children over age 4 yr may gain significant additional benefit from a second implant, including improved speech perception in some noise contexts and functional advantages in daily life. There is, however, no evidence from this study to suggest that binaural listening skills, including localization, will develop during the first 6 mo. Furthermore, some children who may be committed users of a first implant may not adapt to or benefit from a second implant during the first 6 mo of device use. Although the factors influencing benefit cannot be clearly identified, limited preoperative auditory experience with the second ear, a delay of years between implants, relatively advanced age, and lack of second-implant-alone experience do not preclude benefit. Continued evaluation of these and additional subjects will clarify the factors that do contribute to benefit. Such information will be vital in helping families of implanted children to make an informed decision regarding a second implant.     

Sound localization ability of young children with bilateral cochlear implants.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of bilateral cochlear implantation in young children. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical trial comparing a group of bilaterally implanted children with a group of unilaterally implanted children. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Five bilaterally implanted children (mean age at testing, 3 yr 7 mo) were compared with 5 unilaterally implanted children (mean age at testing, 5 yr 3 mo). Meningitis was the cause of deafness in all of the children. METHODS: Children were asked to localize a prerecorded melody band limited from 500 to 4,000 Hz presented from loudspeakers placed at either -90 or 90 degrees or -30 or 30 degrees azimuth. Their parents filled in the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and PedsQL questionnaires on hearing and health-related quality of life of their children. RESULTS: The bilaterally implanted children had significantly better scores on the localization test than the children with unilateral cochlear implants. The scores of the children with bilateral cochlear implants were also significantly higher on the spatial domain of the SSQ, which concerns localization. No significant differences were found in the speech and quality of hearing domains and the total scores on the SSQ or the PedsQL between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Children with bilateral cochlear implantation already demonstrate an advantage over unilaterally implanted children at a young age.     

Can adolescents and young adults with prelingual hearing loss benefit from a second,sequential cochlear implant?

Abstract

This study aimed to determine if adolescents/young adults gained additional perceptual benefit from sequential bilateral cochlear implants within 12 months, and to document adaptation to the second implant. Assessments comprised a pediatric version of The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), anecdotal reports of device use and daily listening, and the Adaptive Spondee Discrimination Test (AdSpon). All nine participants achieved full-time use of, a preference for, and superior daily listening with, bilateral implants. Eight participants were comfortable using the second implant alone, and two achieved similar daily listening with either implant alone. SSQ ratings were higher post-operatively for the majority of participants. AdSpon performance was superior bilaterally for five participants with noise ipsilateral to the first implant, but not contralateral. Unilateral performance with either implant was similar for one participant. A second implant may provide additional benefit up to 19 years of age, even with congenital hearing loss and >16 years between implants. Families and clinicians should understand the aspects of second-implant candidacy and post-operative use that are unique to adolescents/young adults.

Sumario

El objetivo del estudio fue determinar si los adolescentes y adultos jóvenes obtenían un beneficio adicional con implantes cocleares bilaterales secuenciales en un periodo de 12 meses, y documentar la adaptación al segundo implante. La evaluación comprendió una versión pediátrica de la Escala para el Lenguaje, la Audición Espacial y las Cualidades Auditivas (SSQ), reportes anecdóticos de uso de dispositivos y escucha cotidiana; y la Prueba Adaptativa de Discriminación de Espondaicas (AdSpon). Los nueve participantes lograron el uso por tiempo completo, la preferencia por, y la escucha superior cotidiana con los implantes bilaterales. Ocho participantes se sintieron a gusto con el segundo implante solamente y dos lograron condiciones de escucha similares con cualquiera de los implantes individualmente. Las puntuaciones de SSQ fueron más altas en el postoperatorio para la mayoría de los participantes. Para seis participantes, el desempeño en la AdSpon fue superior en la condición bilateral con ruido ipsilateral en el primer implante, pero no en el contralateral. El desempeño unilateral con cualquiera de los implantes fue similar para un participante. Un segundo implante puede proporcionar beneficio adicional hasta los 19 años de edad, aun en el caso de hipoacusia congénita y más de 16 años entre implantes. Las familias y los clínicos deben entender los aspectos para la candidatura de un segundo implante y su uso postoperatorio que son singulares para los adolescentes y los adultos jóvenes.     

Speech detection and localization results and clinical outcomes for children receiving sequential bilateral cochlear implants before four years of age

The aim of this study was to describe the adaptation to bilateral cochlear implant use and the perceptual benefits demonstrated by 10 children who were successful users of a first implant when a second was received before four years of age. Although one subject rejected the second implant at switch-on, the nine subjects who accepted the device adapted easily to bilateral implant use and developed useful listening skills with the second implant. Tests of localization (left versus right) and speech detection in noise were administered in the unilateral and bilateral conditions, usually after six months experience. All subjects demonstrated some bilateral benefit on speech detection testing (mostly due to a headshadow effect), and the majority localized left versus right. Results suggested that outcomes may be negatively impacted by increased age at the time of second implant switch-on. The majority of the subjects adapted well to bilateral implant use within six months and demonstrated some perceptual benefit and, according to subjective parent reports, improved daily functioning; however, device rejection must be discussed pre-operatively as a possibility.     

Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss,Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) disabilities,and handicap

A series of comparative analyses is presented between a group with relatively similar degrees of hearing loss in each ear (n = 103: symmetry group) and one with dissimilar losses (n = 50: asymmetry group). Asymmetry was defined as an interaural difference of more than 10dB in hearing levels averaged over 0.5, 1, 2 and 4kHz. Comparison was focused on self-rated disabilities as reflected in responses on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). The connections between SSQ ratings and a global self-rating of handicap were also observed. The interrelationships among SSQ items for the two groups were analysed to determine how the SSQ behaves when applied to groups in whom binaural hearing is more (asymmetry) versus less compromised. As expected, spatial hearing is severely disabled in the group with asymmetry; this group is generally more disabled than the symmetry group across all SSQ domains. In the linkages with handicap, spatial hearing, especially in dynamic settings, was strongly represented in the asymmetry group, while all aspects of hearing were moderately to strongly represented in the symmetry group. Item intercorrelations showed that speech hearing is a relatively autonomous function for the symmetry group, whereas it is enmeshed with segregation, clarity and naturalness factors for the asymmetry group. Spatial functions were more independent of others in the asymmetry group. The SSQ shows promise in the assessment of outcomes in the case of bilateral versus unilateral amplification and/or implantation.     

Interaural asymmetry of hearing loss, Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) disabilities, and handicap

A series of comparative analyses is presented between a group with relatively similar degrees of hearing loss in each ear (n = 103: symmetry group) and one with dissimilar losses (n = 50: asymmetry group). Asymmetry was defined as an interaural difference of more than 10dB in hearing levels averaged over 0.5. 1, 2 and 4kHz. Comparison was focused on self-rated disabilities as reflected in responses on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ). The connections between SSQ ratings and a global self-rating of handicap were also observed. The interrelationships among SSQ items for the two groups were analysed to determine how the SSQ behaves when applied to groups in whom binaural hearing is more (asymmetry) versus less compromised. As expected, spatial hearing is severely disabled in the group with asymmetry; this group is generally more disabled than the symmetry group across all SSQ domains. In the linkages with handicap, spatial hearing, especially in dynamic settings, was strongly represented in the asymmetry group, while all aspects of hearing were moderately to strongly represented in the symmetry group. Item intercorrelations showed that speech hearing is a relatively autonomous function for the symmetry group, whereas it is enmeshed with segregation, clarity and naturalness factors for the asymmetry group. Spatial functions were more independent of others in the asymmetry group. The SSQ shows promise in the assessment of outcomes in the case of bilateral versus unilateral amplification and/or implantation.     

Cochlear implantation for a child with cochlear nerve deficiency: Parental perspectives explored through narrative

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore, from the parents’ perspectives, decision-making regarding a cochlear implant (CI) for their child when a favourable outcome is less likely because of abnormal neurophysiology. Design: The primary research method of this single case study was qualitative interviewing drawing on a narrative approach to elicit the parents’ perspectives about their experiences over time. Each parent was interviewed separately, but thematic analyses were undertaken both within and across interviews in order to identify overlaps and differences. Study sample: Participants included the parents of a five-year old child with severe-profound hearing loss, cochlear nerve deficiency, and bilateral common cavities who had received a CI at the age of 18 months. Results: Four themes were identified across the four narrative stages that emerged from the parents’ accounts of their experiences regarding their daughter's CI. Themes included hope and despair, questioning professionals’ motivations, does deafness need a cure, and bringing the child into the family. Although these themes emerged from both parents’ accounts, each parent expressed different perspectives and insights within them. Conclusions: Findings highlight the central place of parental needs and perspectives in decision-making regarding a CI, particularly in the context of uncertain outcomes.     

A longitudinal study of the bilateral benefit in children with bilateral cochlear implants

Objective: To study the development of the bilateral benefit in children using bilateral cochlear implants by measurements of speech recognition and sound localization. Design: Bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet, in multi-source noise, and horizontal sound localization was measured at three occasions during a two-year period, without controlling for age or implant experience. Longitudinal and cross-sectional analyses were performed. Results were compared to cross-sectional data from children with normal hearing. Study sample: Seventy-eight children aged 5.1–11.9 years, with a mean bilateral cochlear implant experience of 3.3 years and a mean age of 7.8 years, at inclusion in the study. Thirty children with normal hearing aged 4.8–9.0 years provided normative data. Results: For children with cochlear implants, bilateral and unilateral speech recognition in quiet was comparable whereas a bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization was found at all three test occasions. Absolute performance was lower than in children with normal hearing. Early bilateral implantation facilitated sound localization. Conclusions: A bilateral benefit for speech recognition in noise and sound localization continues to exist over time for children with bilateral cochlear implants, but no relative improvement is found after three years of bilateral cochlear implant experience.     

Parent versus child assessment of quality of life in children using cochlear implants

Objective

Children with hearing loss who use cochlear implants have lower quality of life (QoL) in social situations and lower self-esteem than hearing peers. The child's QoL has been assessed primarily by asking the parent rather than asking the child. This poses a problem because parents have difficulty judging less observable aspects like self-esteem and socio-emotional functioning, the domains most affected by hearing loss.

Methods

This case-control study evaluated QoL in 50 preschoolers using a cochlear implant and their parents with the Kiddy KINDL^®, an established QoL measure. Children's responses were compared to a hearing control group and correlated with demographic variables. We used a questionnaire for parents and a face-to-face interview with children. T-tests were used to compare (a) paired parent-child ratings and (b) children with cochlear implants versus normal hearing. Pearson rank correlations were used to compare QoL with demographic variables.

Results

Children using cochlear implants rated overall QoL significantly more positively than their parents (M_Difference = 4.22, p = .03). Child rating of QoL did not differ significantly by auditory status (cochlear implant (82.8) vs. hearing (80.8), p = .42). Overall QoL correlated inversely with cochlear implant experience and chronologic age, but did not correlate with implantation age.

Conclusions

Preschool children using cochlear implants can assess adequately their own QoL, but parents afford valuable complementary perspective on the child's socio-emotional and physical well-being. Preschool children using cochlear implants rate overall QoL measures similar to hearing peers. A constellation of QoL measures should be collected to yield a better understanding of general QoL as well as specific domains centered on hearing loss.     

United Kingdom national paediatric bilateral project: Demographics and results of localization and speech perception testing

Objectives: To assess longitudinal outcomes in a large and varied population of children receiving bilateral cochlear implants both simultaneously and sequentially.

Methods: This observational non-randomized service evaluation collected localization and speech recognition in noise data from simultaneously and sequentially implanted children at four time points: before bilateral cochlear implants or before the sequential implant, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after bilateral implants. No inclusion criteria were applied, so children with additional difficulties, cochleovestibular anomalies, varying educational placements, 23 different home languages, a full range of outcomes and varying device use were included.

Results: 1001 children were included: 465 implanted simultaneously and 536 sequentially, representing just over 50% of children receiving bilateral implants in the UK in this period. In simultaneously implanted children the median age at implant was 2.1 years; 7% were implanted at less than 1 year of age. In sequentially implanted children the interval between implants ranged from 0.1 to 14.5 years. Children with simultaneous bilateral implants localized better than those with one implant. On average children receiving a second (sequential) cochlear implant showed improvement in localization and listening in background noise after 1 year of bilateral listening. The interval between sequential implants had no effect on localization improvement although a smaller interval gave more improvement in speech recognition in noise. Children with sequential implants on average were able to use their second device to obtain spatial release from masking after 2 years of bilateral listening. Although ranges were large, bilateral cochlear implants on average offered an improvement in localization and speech perception in noise over unilateral implants.

Conclusion: These data represent the diverse population of children with bilateral cochlear implants in the UK from 2010 to 2012. Predictions of outcomes for individual patients are not possible from these data. However, there are no indications to preclude children with long inter-implant interval having the chance of a second cochlear implant.     

Predicting speech perception outcomes following cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness or highly asymmetric hearing loss

Objective: Unilateral deafness and highly asymmetric hearing loss can impair listening abilities in everyday situations, create substantial audiological handicap, and reduce overall quality of life. Preliminary evidence suggests that cochlear implantation may be effective in reversing some of these detrimental effects. Patient-level data from existing studies were re-analysed to explore potential factors that may be predictive of improved speech perception scores following implantation.

Methods: Logistic regression modelling examined whether improved speech perception following implantation under various listening conditions was related to the duration of deafness of the severe-to-profoundly deaf ear and/or the level of hearing in the better ear.

Results: Patients with a shorter duration of deafness were more likely to improve in listening conditions that created a less favourable SNR at the implanted ear than the non-implanted ear. Those with more residual hearing in the better ear were more likely to improve in the listening condition that created a less favourable SNR at that ear.

Discussion: The analysis suggests that characteristics of both ears may be relevant when seeking to identify those candidates who are likely to obtain benefit to speech perception following cochlear implantation.