Psychological Predictors of Audiological Outcomes of Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Preliminary Findings

The purpose of this research was to determine whether psychological variables were associated with the variability that characterizes the audiological performance of recipients of multichannel cochlear implants. Twenty-nine consecutive recipients of multichannel implants participated in a preoperative psychological assessment and audiological follow-up assessments after 18 months of implant use. Experimental cognitive measures that assess an ability to rapidly detect and respond to features imbedded in sequentially arrayed information accounted for up to 30% of the variance in implant outcome, suggesting the importance of cognitive abilities in implant outcome. Standardized measures of intellectual ability, however, were not predictive of outcome. The Health Opinion Survey, a measure of participatory engagement, was also a significant predictor of audiological outcome. Overall, the results implicated the importance of several specific psychological factors in the audiological outcome of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adult recipients.

[1]  D. Eddington Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  A. Vega Present Neuropsychological Status of Subjects Implanted with Auditory Prostheses , 1977, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[3]  A. Baum,et al.  Assessment of Preferences for self-treatment and information in health care. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  M Wexler,et al.  Psychometric studies and clinical interviews with cochlear implant patients. , 1982, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[5]  L. McKenna The psychological assessment of cochlear implant patients. , 1986, British journal of audiology.

[6]  G. Clark,et al.  Acoustic parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a multiple-channel cochlear implant. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  J. Suls,et al.  Evaluation of compliance in home and center hemodialysis patients. , 1983 .

[8]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[9]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Long‐Term effects of multichannel cochlear implant usage , 1986, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  M A Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1990 What one intelligence test measures : A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test , 2016 .

[11]  R S Tyler,et al.  Synthetic two-formant vowel perception by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1989, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[12]  H A SIMON,et al.  HUMAN ACQUISITION OF CONCEPTS FOR SEQUENTIAL PATTERNS. , 1963, Psychological review.

[13]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales , 1962 .

[14]  J. Suls,et al.  Perceptions of Control and Causality as Predictors of Compliance and Coping in Hemodialysis , 1983 .

[15]  M F Dorman,et al.  Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .