Cochlear implant recipients have demonstrated remarkable increases in speech perception since US FDA approval was granted in 1984. Improved performance is due to a number of factors including improved cochlear implant technology, evolving speech coding strategies, and individuals with increasingly more residual hearing receiving implants. Despite this evolution, the same recommendations for pre- and postimplant speech recognition testing have been in place for over 10 years in the United States. To determine whether new recommendations are warranted, speech perception performance was assessed for 156 adult, postlingually deafened implant recipients as well as 50 hearing aid users on monosyllabic word recognition (CNC) and sentence recognition in quiet (HINT and AzBio sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN). Results demonstrated that for HINT sentences in quiet, 28% of the subjects tested achieved maximum performance of 100% correct and that scores did not agree well with monosyllables (CNC) or sentence recognition in noise (BKB-SIN). For a more difficult sentence recognition material (AzBio), only 0.7% of the subjects achieved 100% performance and scores were in much better agreement with monosyllables and sentence recognition in noise. These results suggest that more difficult materials are needed to assess speech perception performance of postimplant patients – and perhaps also for determining implant candidacy.

Keywords:
Cochlear implants, Speech recognition, Implant candidacy, Ceiling effects
1.
Bassim MK, Buss E, Clark MS, Kolln KA, Pillsbury CH, Pillsbury HC, Buchman CA: MED EL Combi40+ cochlear implantation in adults. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1568–1573.
2.
Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J: The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979;13:108–112.
3.
Boothroyd A, Hanin L, Hnath T: A Sentence Test of Speech Perception: Reliability, Set Equivalence, and Short Term Learning (Internal report RCI 10). New York, City University of New York, 1985.
4.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS): CMS Manual System, Medicare National Coverage Determination, Subject: Cochlear Implantation. Transmittal 42, July 1, 2005, Pub 100-03.
5.
Dorman MF: Combining electric and acoustic stimulation. AudiologyNOW!, Denver, April 2007.
6.
Firszt JB, Holden LK, Skinner MW, Tobey EA, Peterson A, Gaggl W, Runge-Samuelson CL, Wackym PA: Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear Hear 2004;25:375–387.
7.
Helms J, Muller J, Schon F, Moser I, Arnold W, Janssen T, Ramsden R, von Ilberg C, Kiefer J, Pfennigdorf T, Gstoettner W, Baumgartner W, Ehrenberger K, Skarzynski H, Ribari O, Thumfart W, Stephan K, Mann W, Heinemann M, Zorowka P, Lippert KL, Zenner HP, Bohndord M, Huttenbrink K, Hochmair-Desoyer I: Evaluation of performance with the COMBI40 cochlear implant in adults: a multicentric clinical study. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 1997;59:23–35.
8.
Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D: HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution Bionic Ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurotol 2004;9:214–223.
9.
Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C: Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hear 2006;27:714–731.
10.
Luxford WM, Allum D, Balkany T, Brimacombe J, Cohen N, Gantz B, Hodges A, Kessler D, Maltan A, Miyamoto R, Niparko J, Osberger MJ, Skinner M, Staller S, Tobey E, Tyler R, Waltzman S: Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;124:125–126.
11.
Mackersie CL: Tests of speech perception abilities. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;10:392–397.
12.
Mao HF, Hsueh IP, Tang PF, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL: Analysis and comparison of the psychometric properties of three balance measures for stroke patients. Stroke 2002;33:1022–1027.
13.
Nilsson MJ, McCaw VM, Soli SD: Minimum Speech Test Battery for adult Cochlear Implant Users: User Manual. Los Angeles, House Ear Institute, 1996.
14.
Nilsson MJ, Soli SD, Sullivan J: Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;95:1085–1099.
15.
Parkinson AJ, Arcaroli J, Staller SJ, Arndt PL, Cosgriff A, Ebinger K: The Nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results. Ear Hear 2002;23:41S–48S.
16.
Peterson GE, Lehiste I: Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62–70.
17.
Spahr AJ, Dorman MF: Effects of minimum stimulation setting for the Med El Tempo+ speech processor on speech understanding. Ear Hear 2005;26:2S–6S.
18.
Tillman T, Olsen W: Speech audiometry; in Jerger J (ed): Modern Developments in Audiology. New York, Academic Press, 1973.
19.
Van der Putten JJMF, Hobart JC, Freeman JA, Thompson AJ: Measuring change in disability after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:480–484.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
2008
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.