Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Speech recognition and quality of life outcomes of adults with cochlear implants following a quarter-century of deafness: what should be the maximum duration?

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was aimed at examining the pre- and post-cochlear implant (CI) speech recognition and quality of life results of postlingually deaf adult CI users with a duration of deafness (DoD) > 25 years and determining the maximum DoD limit.

Methods

We enrolled 54 postlingually deaf CI users and divided them into ages ≤ 60 and > 60 years and DoDs ≤ 25 and > 25 years. All participants were evaluated using multisensory measures (auditory and auditory + visual) and open-set Speech Recognition Test (SRT) before CI and 3 years postoperatively. They were administered with The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) to determine the effects of hearing impairment on daily life.

Results

DoD and open-set SRT for auditory and auditory + visual stimuli showed a strong negative linear relationship (r =  − 0.506, p < 0.01). Open-set SRT scores of patients with DoD aged ≤ 25 and > 25 years (p < 0.01) differed significantly. The chronological age and HHIE scores in social and emotional subfactors showed a strong negative linear relationship (r =  − 0.519, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The present study showed that the number of years was a major factor determining that postlingual adults with profound hearing loss had hearing loss. The results support CI use as soon as possible in adults to prevent degeneration of the auditory pathways and possible central remodeling. However, auditory rehabilitation outcomes in adults using CI vary widely. Investigating the causes of this variability contributes to audiology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carlyon RP, Goehring T (2021) Cochlear implant research and development in the twenty-first century: a critical update. JARO 22(5):481–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-021-00811-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Clark JH, Yeagle J, Arbaje AI, Lin FR, Niparko JK, Francis HW (2012) Cochlear implant rehabilitation in older adults: literature review and proposal of a conceptual framework. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(10):1936–1945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04150.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin FR, Ferrucci L (2012) Hearing loss and falls among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med 172(4):369–371. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.728

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen F, Hazrati O, Loizou PC (2013) Predicting the intelligibility of reverberant speech for cochlear implant listeners with a non-intrusive intelligibility measure. Biomed Signal Process Control 8(3):311–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bspc.2012.11.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182741aa7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Moberly AC, Lowenstein JH, Nittrouer S (2016) Word recognition variability with cochlear implants: “perceptual attention” versus “auditory sensitivity.” Ear Hear 37(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D (2004) HiResolutionTM and conventional sound processing in the HiResolutionTM bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Aud Neurotol 9(4):214–223. https://doi.org/10.1159/000078391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Skinner MW (2009) Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 30(2):146. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181924ff8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chakravorti S, Noble JH, Gifford RH, Dawant BM, O’Connell B, Wang J, Labadie RF (2019) Further evidence of the relationship between cochlear implant electrode positioning and hearing outcomes. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 40(5):617. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. O’Connell BP, Cakir A, Hunter JB, Francis DO, Noble JH, Labadie RF, Zuniga G, Dawant BM, Rivas A, Wanna GB (2016) Electrode location and angular insertion depth are predictors of audiologic outcomes in cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 37(8):1016. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sladen DP, Zappler A (2015) Older and younger adult cochlear implant users: speech recognition in quiet and noise, quality of life, and music perception. Am J Audiol 24(1):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0066

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gomaa NA, Rubinstein JT, Lowder MW, Tyler RS, Gantz BJ (2003) Residual speech perception and cochlear implant performance in postlingually deafened adults. Ear Hear 24(6):539–544. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000100208.26628.2D

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nassiri AM, Wallerius KP, Saoji AA, Neff BA, Driscoll CL, Carlson ML (2022) Impact of duration of deafness on speech perception in single-sided deafness cochlear implantation in adults. Otol Neurotol 43(1):e45–e49. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nadol JB Jr, Eddington DK (2004) Histologic evaluation of the tissue seal and biologic response around cochlear implant electrodes in the human. Otol Neurotol 25(3):257–262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Seyyedi M, Nadol JB Jr (2014) Intracochlear inflammatory response to cochlear implant electrodes in the human. Otol Neurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 35(9):1545. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000000540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Green KM, Bhatt YM, Mawman DJ, O’Driscoll MP, Saeed SR, Ramsden RT, Green MW (2007) Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int 8(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/cii.326

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jin SH, Liu C, Sladen DP (2014) The effects of aging on speech perception in noise: comparison between normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners. J Am Acad Audiol 25(07):656–665. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.25.7.4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gordon-Salant S, Shader MJ, Wingfield A (2020) Age-related changes in speech understanding: peripheral versus cognitive influences. Aging Hear Causes Consequences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49367-7_9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shader MJ, Kwon BJ, Gordon-Salant S, Goupell MJ (2022) Open-set phoneme recognition performance with varied temporal cues in younger and older cochlear implant users. J Speech Lang Hear Res 65(3):1196–1211. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00299

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Forli F, Lazzerini F, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, Berrettini S (2019) Cochlear implant in the elderly: results in terms of speech perception and quality of life. Audiol Neurotol 24(2):77–83. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Leung J, Wang NY, Yeagle JD, Chinnici J, Bowditch S, Francis HW, Niparko JK (2005) Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131(12):1049–1054. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.131.12.1049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bernhard N, Gauger U, Romo Ventura E, Uecker FC, Olze H, Knopke S, Hansel T, Coordes A (2021) Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: a meta-analysis. Laryngoscope Investig Otol 6(2):291–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang Z, Cosetti M (2016) Safety and outcomes of cochlear implantation in the elderly: a review of recent literature. J Otol 11(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joto.2016.03.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin FR (2011) Hearing loss and cognition among older adults in the United States. J Gerontol Ser A Biomed Sci Med Sci 66(10):1131–1136. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glr115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Garcia-Iza L, Martinez Z, Ugarte A, Fernandez M, Altuna X (2018) Cochlear implantation in the elderly: outcomes, long-term evolution, and predictive factors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn 275:913–922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-018-4910-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bradley J, Bird P, Monteath P, Wells JE (2010) Improved speech discrimination after cochlear implantation in the Southern Cochlear Implant Adult Programme. NZ Med J 123(1321):34–44

    Google Scholar 

  27. Aksoy S, Aslan F, Köse A, Alpar R (2019) İşitme Engeli Ölçeği-Yaşli Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik: Türk Popülasyonunda Tarama Ve Uzun Formlarinin Kullanimi. In KBB Forum 18(4):310–321

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moon IJ, Kim EY, Jeong JO, Chung WH, Cho YS, Hong SH (2012) The influence of various factors on the performance of repetition tests in adults with cochlear implants. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn 269(3):739–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-011-1699-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sladen DP, Gifford RH, Haynes D, Kelsall D, Benson A, Lewis K, Zwolan T, Fu QJ, Gantz B, Gilden J, Westerberg B, Gustin C, O’Neil L, Driscoll CL (2017) Evaluation of a revised indication for determining adult cochlear implant candidacy. Laryngoscope 127(10):2368–2374. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26513

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Arisi E, Forti S, Pagani D, Todini L, Torretta S, Ambrosetti U, Pignataro L (2010) Cochlear implantation in adolescents with prelinguistic deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142(6):804–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2010.02.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen DS, Clarrett DM, Li L, Bowditch SP, Niparko JK, Lin FR (2013) Cochlear implantation in older adults: long-term analysis of complications and device survival in a consecutive series. OtolNeurotol Off Publ Am Otol Soc Am Neurotol Soc Eur Acad Otol Neurotol 34(7):1272. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0b013e3182936bb2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA (2010) Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear 31(2):186. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c6b831

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D, Bergeron F, Beynon A, Burke E, Dillier N, Dowell R, Fraysse B, Gallego S, Govaerts PJ, Green K, Huber AM, Kleine-Punte A, Maat B, Marx M, Mawman D, Mosnier I, O’Connor AF, O’Leary S, Rousset A, Schauwers K, Skarzynski H, Skarzynski PH, Sterkers O, Terranti A, Truy E, Van de Heyning P, Venail F, Vincent C, Lazard DS (2013) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurotol 18(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.1159/000259212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwab B, Gandolfi M, Lai E, Reilly E, Singer L, Kim AH (2015) The impact of age on cochlear implant performance. Int J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 4(05):329. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijohns.2015.45056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Farinetti A, Roman S, Mancini J, Baumstarck-Barrau K, Meller R, Lavieille JP, Triglia JM (2015) Quality of life in bimodal hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn 272:3209–3215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480510044412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Offeciers E, Morera C, Müller J, Huarte A, Shallop J, Cavallé L (2005) International consensus on bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal stimulation: second meeting consensus on auditory implants, 19–21 February 2004, Valencia. Spain Acta Otolaryngol 125(9):918–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016480510044412

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Granço FS, Fernandes NF, Morettin M, Costa Filho OA, Bevilacqua MC (2013) The relationship between the speech perception and the degree of satisfaction among adult users of cochlear implants. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 17(02):202–207. https://doi.org/10.7162/S1809-97772013000200014

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kumar RS, Mawman D, Sankaran D, Melling C, O’Driscoll M, Freeman SM, Lloyd SK (2016) Cochlear implantation in early deafened, late implanted adults: do they benefit? Cochlear Implants Int 17(sup1):22–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14670100.2016.1161142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ciorba A, Guidi MP, Skarżyński PH, Bianchini C, Rosignoli M, Mazzoli M, Stefano P, Hatzopoulos S (2021) Rehabilitation of severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss in adults: audiological outcomes. Ear Nose Throat J 100(3_suppl):215S-219S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561319892461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Castiglione A, Benatti A, Velardita C, Favaro D, Padoan E, Severi D, Pagliaro M, Bovo R, Vallesi A, Gabelli C, Martini A (2016) Aging, cognitive decline and hearing loss: effects of auditory rehabilitation and training with hearing aids and cochlear implants on cognitive function and depression among older adults. Audiol Neurotol 21(Suppl. 1):21–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000448350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Thangavelu K, Nitzge M, Weiß RM, Mueller-Mazzotta J, Stuck BA, Reimann K (2023) Role of cochlear reserve in adults with cochlear implants following post-lingual hearing loss. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn 280(3):1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-022-07558-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Di Nardo W, Anzivino R, Giannantonio S, Schinaia L, Paludetti G (2014) The effects of cochlear implantation on quality of life in the elderly. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn 271:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2396-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There are no funding sources to declare. The authors thank the participants and their families for their involvement in this study. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Audiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Hilal Burcu Ozkan Atak & Gonca Sennaroglu

  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Levent Sennaroglu

Authors
  1. Hilal Burcu Ozkan Atak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gonca Sennaroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Levent Sennaroglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the authors contributed to the study conception, analysis and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by HBOA and GS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by HBOA, GS, and LS. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilal Burcu Ozkan Atak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We initiated the data collection process after obtaining the approval of the Ethical Committee for Non-Interventional Clinical Research of Hacettepe University (issue no. 16969557-1256, decision no. GO 21/541).

Consent to participate

This study was conducted at the Hacettepe University Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Audiology. Patients routinely signed a form consenting the use of personal data for scientific and research purposes before enrollment.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atak, H.B.O., Sennaroglu, G. & Sennaroglu, L. Speech recognition and quality of life outcomes of adults with cochlear implants following a quarter-century of deafness: what should be the maximum duration?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280, 4903–4913 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08214-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08214-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation