European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

, Volume 271, Issue 1, pp 49–57 | Cite as

Benefits from upgrade to the CP810™ sound processor for Nucleus® 24 cochlear implant recipients

  • Isabelle MosnierEmail author
  • Mathieu Marx
  • Frederic Venail
  • Natalie Loundon
  • Samantha Roux-Vaillard
  • Olivier Sterkers


The objective of this study was to measure performance benefits obtained by upgrading recipients of the Cochlear™ Nucleus® CI24 cochlear implant to the new CP810™ sound processor. Speech recognition in quiet and in spatially separated noise was measured in established users of the Cochlear ESPrit 3G™ (n = 22) and Freedom™ (n = 13) sound processors, using the “Everyday” listening program. Subjects were then upgraded to the CP810 processor and were re-assessed after a 3-month period, using both the “Everyday” program and the new “Noise” program, which incorporates several pre-processing features including a new directional microphone algorithm (“Zoom™”). Subjective perceptions were also recorded using the abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit (APHAB) questionnaire. Mean scores for monosyllables in quiet, presented at 50 and 60 dB SPL, increased by 11 % (p < 0.0001) and 8 % (p < 0.001), respectively, after upgrade, for all subjects combined. Significant increases were also recorded for both processor groups. In noise, the mean scores were 60.0 and 67.4 % for the original and CP810 Everyday programs, respectively (difference not significant). With the CP810 Noise programs the mean score increased to 82.5 % (p < 0.01), with significant increases in both processor groups. There was evidence of slightly greater upgrade benefit in users of the ESPrit 3G processor and in relatively poor performers. The APHAB questionnaire also indicated significant reduction in perceived difficulty in the background noise and reverberation sub-scales after upgrade. The findings of the study appear to support the expectation of increased benefit from the new CP810 sound processor.


Cochlear implant Sound processor Upgrade Speech recognition Noise 



The authors gratefully acknowledge Mathilde Cosnard who collected the data and Paul Boyd for his writing assistance, all on behalf of Cochlear. The authors warrant that there was no conflict of interest related to this study.


  1. 1.
    Davidson LS, Skinner MW, Holstad BA, Fears BT, Richter MK et al (2009) The effect of instantaneous input dynamic range setting on the speech perception of children with the nucleus 24 implant. Ear Hear 30:340–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller-Deile J, Kortmann T, Hoppe U, Hessel H, Morsnowski A (2009) Improving speech comprehension using a new cochlear implant speech processor. HNO 57:567–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Santarelli R, Magnavita V, De Filippi R, Ventura L, Genovese E, Arslan E (2009) Comparison of speech perception performance between sprint/esprit 3G and freedom processors in children implanted with nucleus cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 30:304–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfe J, Parkinson A, Schafer EC, Gilden J, Rehwinkel K et al (2012) Benefit of a commercially available cochlear implant processor with dual-microphone beamforming: a multi-center study. Otol Neurotol 33:553–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cochlear White Paper (2009) Cochlear™ Nucleus® 5 delivering superior performance in noiseGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M et al (2007) Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. Ear Hear 28:62–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gifford RH, Olund AP, Dejong M (2011) Improving speech perception in noise for children with cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 22:623–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hersbach AA, Arora K, Mauger SJ, Dawson PW (2012) Combining directional microphone and single-channel noise reduction algorithms: a clinical evaluation in difficult listening conditions with cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 33:e13–e23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ (2006) The development of the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 10:175–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blamey PJ (2005) Adaptive dynamic range optimization (ADRO): a digital amplification strategy for hearing aids and cochlear implants. Trends Amplif 9:77–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davidson LS, Geers AE, Brenner C (2010) Cochlear implant characteristics and speech perception skills of adolescents with long-term device use. Otol Neurotol 31:1310–1314PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dawson PW, Vandali AE, Knight MR, Heasman JM (2007) Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear 28:163–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James CJ, Skinner MW, Martin LF, Holden LK, Galvin KL et al (2003) An investigation of input level range for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear 24:157–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dawson PW, Decker JA, Psarros CE (2004) Optimizing dynamic range in children using the nucleus cochlear implant. Ear Hear 25(3):230–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    James CJ, Blamey PJ, Martin L, Swanson B, Just Y, Macfarlane D (2002) Adaptive dynamic range optimization for cochlear implants: a preliminary study. Ear Hear 23:49S–58SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolfe J, Schafer EC, Heldner B, Mülder H, Ward E, Vincent B (2009) Evaluation of speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants and dynamic FM. J Am Acad Audiol 20:409–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brockmeyer AM, Potts LG (2011) Evaluation of different signal processing options in unilateral and bilateral cochlear freedom implant recipients using R-space background noise. J Am Acad Audiol 22:65–80PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bentler RA, Neibuhr DP, Johnson TA et al (2003) Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear 24:215–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawes P, Powell S, Munro KJ (2011) The placebo effect and the influence of participant expectation on hearing aid trials. Ear Hear 32:767–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabelle Mosnier
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 8
    Email author
  • Mathieu Marx
    • 4
  • Frederic Venail
    • 5
  • Natalie Loundon
    • 6
  • Samantha Roux-Vaillard
    • 7
  • Olivier Sterkers
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 8
  1. 1.Université Paris DiderotParisFrance
  2. 2.INSERMParisFrance
  3. 3.Service d’ORL et de Chirurgie cervico-facialeAP-HP, Hôpital BeaujonClichy cedexFrance
  4. 4.Service d’Otologie-OtoneurologieCHU Toulouse, Hôpital PurpanToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Service ORLHôpital Gui-de-Chauliac, CHRUMontpellierFrance
  6. 6.Service d’ORL et de Chirurgie Cervico-FacialeHôpital d’Enfants Armand-Trousseau, AP-HPParisFrance
  7. 7.Service d’ORL et de Chirurgie Cervico-FacialeCentre Hospitalier et Universitaire d’AngersAngersFrance
  8. 8.Centre référent Implant Cochléaire Adulte Ile de FranceAP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-SalpétrièreParis cedex 13France

Personalised recommendations