Purpose: Cochlear implant (CI) sound-processing strategies are important to the overall success of a CI recipient. This study aimed to determine the effects of 2 Advanced Bionics (AB) CI-processing strategies, Optima-S and Optima-P, on speech recognition outcomes in adult CI users. Methods: A retrospective chart review was completed at a tertiary academic medical center. Seventeen post-lingually deafened adult CI users (median age = 58.6 years; age range: 23.5–78.9 years) with long-term use of a paired sound-processing strategy (Optima-P) were reprogrammed with a sequential strategy (Optima-S). Demographic data and speech recognition scores with pre- and post-intervention analyses were collected and compared with respect to the 95% confidence interval for common CI word and sentence recognition tests. Results: Using Optima-S sound-processing strategy, all patients (100%) performed equivalent or better on word and sentence testing than with Optima-P. More specifically, 17.6, 41.2, and 58.8% of the patients performed above the 95% confidence interval for speech recognition conditions of monosyllabic words, sentences in quiet, and sentences in noise, respectively. All patients (100%) selected Optima-S as their preferred strategy for future CI use. Conclusion: Speech recognition performance with Optima-S processing strategy was stable or improved compared to results with Optima-P in all tested conditions, and subjective preference of Optima-S was selected by all patients. Given these results, CI clinicians should consider programming AB CI users with Optima-S sound-processing strategy to optimize overall speech recognition performance.

1.
Abrams
H
,
Kihm
J
.
An introduction to MarkeTrak IX: a new baseline for the hearing aid market. Hearing review
;
2015 Jun
.
Available at
: https://www.hearingreview.com/practice-building/marketing/introduction-marketrak-ix-new-baseline-hearing-aid-market.
2.
Brendel
M
,
Buechner
A
,
Krueger
B
,
Frohne-Buechner
C
,
Lenarz
T
.
Evaluation of the Harmony soundprocessor in combination with the speech coding strategy HiRes 120
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2008
;
29
(
2
):
199
202
. .
3.
Browning
LM
,
Nie
Y
,
Rout
A
,
Heiner
M
.
Audiologists’ preferences in programming cochlear implants: a preliminary report
.
Cochlear Implants Int
.
2020
;
21
(
4
):
179
91
.
4.
Buechner
A
,
Frohne-Buechner
C
,
Stoever
T
,
Gaertner
L
,
Battmer
RD
,
Lenarz
T
.
Comparison of a paired or sequential stimulation paradigm with advanced bionics’ high-resolution mode
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2005
;
26
(
5
):
941
7
. .
5.
Dunn
CC
,
Tyler
RS
,
Witt
SA
,
Gantz
BJ
.
Effects of converting bilateral cochlear implant subjects to a strategy with increased rate and number of channels
.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
.
2006
;
115
(
6
):
425
32
. .
6.
Firszt
JB
,
Holden
LK
,
Reeder
RM
,
Skinner
MW
.
Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2009 Feb
;
30
(
2
):
146
52
. .
7.
Firszt JB, Koch DB, Downing M, Litvak L. Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2007 Aug; 28(5): 629–36.
8.
Gaeta
L
,
Brydges
CR
.
An Examination of Effect Sizes and Statistical Power in Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
.
J Speech Lang Hear Res
.
2020 May
;
63
(
5
):
1572
-
80
.
9.
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 Neurootol
.
2004 Jul–Aug
;
9
(
4
):
214
23
. .
10.
Koch
DB
,
Downing
M
,
Osberger
MJ
,
Litvak
L
.
Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90k users
.
Ear Hear
.
2007 Apr
;
28
(
2 Suppl l
):
38S
41S
. .
11.
Kochkin
S
.
MarkeTrak VIII: 25-year trends in the hearing health market
.
Hear Rev
.
2009
;
16
(
11
):
12
31
.
Available at
: http://www.hearingreview.com/2009/10/marketrak-viii-25-year-trends-in-the-hearing-health-market.
12.
Melo
TM
,
Bevilacqua
MC
,
Costa
OA
.
Speech perception in cochlear implant users with the HiRes 120 strategy: a systematic review
.
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol
.
2012 Jun
;
78
(
3
):
129
33
. .
13.
Peterson
GE
,
Lehiste
I
.
Revised CNC lists for auditory tests
.
J Speech Hear Disord
.
1962
;
27
:
62
70
. .
14.
Prentiss
S
,
Snapp
H
,
Zwolan
T
.
Audiology practices in the preoperative evaluation and management of adult cochlear implant candidates
.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
.
2020
;
146
(
2
):
136
42
. .
15.
Reynolds
SM
,
Gifford
RH
.
Effect of signal processing strategy and stimulation type on speech and auditory perception in adult cochlear implant users
.
Int J Audiol
.
2019
;
58
(
6
):
363
72
. .
16.
Shapiro
WH
,
Bradham
TS
.
Cochlear implant programming
.
Otolaryngol Clin North Am
.
2012 Feb
;
45
(
1
):
111
27
. .
17.
Spahr
AJ
,
Dorman
MF
,
Litvak
LM
,
Van Wie
S
,
Gifford
RH
,
Loizou
PC
, et al
Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists
.
Ear Hear
.
2012
;
33
(
1
):
112
7
. .
18.
Thornton
AR
,
Raffin
MJ
.
Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable
.
J Speech Hear Res
.
1978
;
21
(
3
):
507
18
. .
19.
Vaerenberg
B
,
Smits
C
,
De Ceulaer
G
,
Zir
E
,
Harman
S
,
Jaspers
N
, et al
Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art
.
ScientificWorldJournal
.
2014 Feb 42014
;
2014
:
501738
. .
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.