Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) is a reliable and safe means by which sensorineural hearing loss can be ameliorated in the elderly population. However, a high degree of variation exists in postimplantation hearing outcomes for which some modifiable factors of the daily natural auditory environment may be contributory. In this study, we analyze the relationship between cochlear implant patient age, natural auditory environment, and postimplantation speech perception among older adults. Methods: Data log from automatic environment classification enabled sound processors of postlingually deafened CI recipients ≥50 years old (n = 115) were obtained retrospectively and analyzed for time spent (hours per day) in listening environment and loudness (SPL dB). Speech perception testing was assessed in a subset of patients (n = 27) using open-set word recognition in quiet Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant in the short and intermediate postoperative period. Results: The mean subject age was 70 years (range, 53–99 years). Average daily implant use was 10.8 h and was not significantly correlated with age (p = 0.23, Spearman’s rho). Age was positively correlated with the percentage of hours spent at <40 and 40–50 dB and negatively correlated to proportional CI use at higher volume (60–70, 70–80, and >80 dB; rs = 0.21, 0.20, −0.20, −0.35, −0.43; p = 0.021, 0.036, 0.033, <0.001, <0.001, respectively). Age was positively correlated with CI use in the quiet scene (rs = 0.26, p = 0.006) and negatively correlated with scenes containing speech and noise (rs = −0.19, −0.25; p = 0.046, 0.007). Total hours of device use and time spent at <40, 40–50 dB, and quiet environments were significantly correlated with improved CNC word scores (rs = 0.48, 0.48, 0.51; p = 0.01, 0.01, <0.01, Spearman’s rho). While all speech (speech in noise + speech) was not significantly correlated to improvements in speech perception, a medium effect size was observed (rs = 0.37, p = 0.057). Discussion/Conclusion: This study supports a relationship between auditory environment and age, with older CI recipients spending a greater proportion of time in quiet. Older CI users demonstrated greater improvements in speech perception with longer daily device use. Additional examination of the relationship between auditory environment and speech perception is necessary to conclusively guide future auditory rehabilitation efforts.

1.
Alattar
AA
,
Bergstrom
J
,
Laughlin
GA
,
Kritz-Silverstein
D
,
Richard
EL
,
Reas
ET
,
Hearing impairment and cognitive decline in older, community-dwelling adults
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2020 Feb
;
75
(
3
):
567
73
. .
2.
Beyea
JA
,
McMullen
KP
,
Harris
MS
,
Houston
DM
,
Martin
JM
,
Bolster
VA
,
Cochlear implants in adults: effects of age and duration of deafness on speech recognition
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2016 Oct
;
37
(
9
):
1238
45
. .
3.
Busch
T
,
Vanpoucke
F
,
van Wieringen
A
.
Auditory environment across the life span of cochlear implant users: insights from data logging
.
J Speech Lang Hear Res
.
2017 May
;
60
(
5
):
1362
77
. .
4.
Cristofari
E
,
Cuda
D
,
Martini
A
,
Forli
F
,
Zanetti
D
,
Di Lisi
D
,
A Multicenter clinical evaluation of data logging in cochlear implant recipients using automated scene classification technologies
.
Audiol Neurootol
.
2017 Dec
;
22
(
4–5
):
226
35
. .
5.
Fakurnejad
S
,
Vail
D
,
Song
Y
,
Alyono
J
,
Blevins
NH
.
Trends in age of cochlear implant recipients, and the impact on perioperative complication rates
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2020 Apr
;
41
(
4
):
438
43
. .
6.
Finley
CC
,
Holden
TA
,
Holden
LK
,
Whiting
BR
,
Chole
RA
,
Neely
GJ
,
Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2008 Oct
;
29
(
7
):
920
8
. .
7.
Fu
QJ
,
Galvin
JJ
.
Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients
.
Trends Amplif
.
2007 Sep
;
11
(
3
):
193
205
. .
8.
Golub
JS
,
Brickman
AM
,
Ciarleglio
AJ
,
Schupf
N
,
Luchsinger
JA
.
Association of subclinical hearing loss with cognitive performance
.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
.
2020 Jan
;
146
(
1
):
57
67
. .
9.
Holden
LK
,
Finley
CC
,
Firszt
JB
,
Holden
TA
,
Brenner
C
,
Potts
LG
,
Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants
.
Ear Hear
.
2013
;
34
(
3
):
342
60
. .
10.
Holder
JT
,
Dwyer
NC
,
Gifford
RH
.
Duration of processor use per day is significantly correlated with speech recognition abilities in adults with cochlear implants
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2020 Feb
;
41
(
2
):
e227
e31
. .
11.
Lin
FR
,
Thorpe
R
,
Gordon-Salant
S
,
Ferrucci
L
.
Hearing loss prevalence and risk factors among older adults in the United States
.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2011 May
;
66
(
5
):
582
90
. .
12.
Mauger
SJ
,
Warren
CD
,
Knight
MR
,
Goorevich
M
,
Nel
E
.
Clinical evaluation of the nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ
.
Int J Audiol
.
2014 Aug
;
53
(
8
):
564
76
. .
13.
Moberly
AC
,
Bates
C
,
Harris
MS
,
Pisoni
DB
.
The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2016 Dec
;
37
(
10
):
1522
8
. .
14.
Moberly
AC
,
Vasil
K
,
Baxter
J
,
Ray
C
.
What to do when cochlear implant users plateau in performance: a pilot study of clinician-guided aural rehabilitation
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2018 Oct
;
39
(
9
):
e794
802
. .
15.
Mosnier
I
,
Bebear
JP
,
Marx
M
,
Fraysse
B
,
Truy
E
,
Lina-Granade
G
,
Predictive factors of cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly
.
Audiol Neurootol
.
2014
;
19
(
Suppl 1
):
15
20
. .
16.
Mosnier
I
,
Vanier
A
,
Bonnard
D
,
Lina-Granade
G
,
Truy
E
,
Bordure
P
,
Long-term cognitive prognosis of profoundly deaf older adults after hearing rehabilitation using cochlear implants
.
J Am Geriatr Soc
.
2018 Aug
;
66
(
8
):
1553
61
. .
17.
Peterson
GE
,
Lehiste
I
.
Revised CNC lists for auditory tests
.
J Speech Hear Disord
.
1962 Feb
;
27
:
62
70
. .
18.
Rauch
AK
,
Kagermann
S
,
Wesarg
T
,
Jakob
TF
,
Aschendorff
A
,
Ihorst
G
,
Data logging evidence of cochlear implant use in single-sided and bilateral deafness
.
Audiol Neurootol
.
2019
;
24
(
4
):
206
16
. .
19.
Sarant
J
,
Harris
D
,
Busby
P
,
Maruff
P
,
Schembri
A
,
Dowell
R
,
The effect of cochlear implants on cognitive function in older adults: initial baseline and 18-month follow up results for a prospective international longitudinal study
.
Front Neurosci
.
2019 Aug
;
13
:
789
. .
20.
Schumann
A
,
Hast
A
,
Hoppe
U
.
Speech performance and training effects in the cochlear implant elderly
.
Audiol Neurootol
.
2014
;
19
(
Suppl 1
):
45
8
. .
21.
Schvartz-Leyzac
KC
,
Conrad
CA
,
Zwolan
TA
.
Datalogging statistics and speech recognition during the first year of use in adult cochlear implant recipients
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2019 Aug
;
40
(
7
):
e686
e93
. .
22.
Zhan
KY
,
Lewis
JH
,
Vasil
KJ
,
Tamati
TN
,
Harris
MS
,
Pisoni
DB
,
Cognitive functions in adults receiving cochlear implants: predictors of speech recognition and changes after implantation
.
Otol Neurotol
.
2020 Mar
;
41
(
3
):
e322
e9
. .
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.