Optimization of programming parameters in children with the advanced bionics cochlear implant.

BACKGROUND Cochlear implants provide access to soft intensity sounds and therefore improved audibility for children with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Speech processor programming parameters, such as threshold (or T-level), input dynamic range (IDR), and microphone sensitivity, contribute to the recipient's program and influence audibility. When soundfield thresholds obtained through the speech processor are elevated, programming parameters can be modified to improve soft sound detection. Adult recipients show improved detection for low-level sounds when T-levels are set at raised levels and show better speech understanding in quiet when wider IDRs are used. Little is known about the effects of parameter settings on detection and speech recognition in children using today's cochlear implant technology. PURPOSE The overall study aim was to assess optimal T-level, IDR, and sensitivity settings in pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. RESEARCH DESIGN Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 examined the effects of two T-level settings on soundfield thresholds and detection of the Ling 6 sounds. One program set T-levels at 10% of most comfortable levels (M-levels) and another at 10 current units (CUs) below the level judged as "soft." Experiment 2 examined the effects of IDR and sensitivity settings on speech recognition in quiet and noise. STUDY SAMPLE Participants were 11 children 7-17 yr of age (mean 11.3) implanted with the Advanced Bionics High Resolution 90K or CII cochlear implant system who had speech recognition scores of 20% or greater on a monosyllabic word test. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two T-level programs were compared for detection of the Ling sounds and frequency modulated (FM) tones. Differing IDR/sensitivity programs (50/0, 50/10, 70/0, 70/10) were compared using Ling and FM tone detection thresholds, CNC (consonant-vowel nucleus-consonant) words at 50 dB SPL, and Hearing in Noise Test for Children (HINT-C) sentences at 65 dB SPL in the presence of four-talker babble (+8 signal-to-noise ratio). Outcomes were analyzed using a paired t-test and a mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS T-levels set 10 CUs below "soft" resulted in significantly lower detection thresholds for all six Ling sounds and FM tones at 250, 1000, 3000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. When comparing programs differing by IDR and sensitivity, a 50 dB IDR with a 0 sensitivity setting showed significantly poorer thresholds for low frequency FM tones and voiced Ling sounds. Analysis of group mean scores for CNC words in quiet or HINT-C sentences in noise indicated no significant differences across IDR/sensitivity settings. Individual data, however, showed significant differences between IDR/sensitivity programs in noise; the optimal program differed across participants. CONCLUSIONS In pediatric recipients of the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant device, manually setting T-levels with ascending loudness judgments should be considered when possible or when low-level sounds are inaudible. Study findings confirm the need to determine program settings on an individual basis as well as the importance of speech recognition verification measures in both quiet and noise. Clinical guidelines are suggested for selection of programming parameters in both young and older children.

[1]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of Patients Using Different Cochlear Implant Systems: Effects of Input Dynamic Range , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[2]  A. Boothroyd,et al.  Voice Fundamental Frequency as an Auditory Supplement to the Speechreading of Sentences , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[3]  M W Skinner,et al.  Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[4]  Jill B Firszt,et al.  Optimizing the perception of soft speech and speech in noise with the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant system , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[5]  A E Vandali,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of Expanded Input Dynamic Range in Nucleus Cochlear Implants , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[6]  René H. Gifford,et al.  Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs , 2008, Audiology and Neurotology.

[7]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Chris J James,et al.  An Investigation of Input Level Range for the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System: Speech Perception Performance, Program Preference, and Loudness Comfort Ratings , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[9]  M. Skinner,et al.  Evaluation of equivalency in two recordings of monosyllabic words. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[10]  J Bamford,et al.  The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. , 1979, British journal of audiology.

[11]  Daniel Ling,et al.  Speech and the Hearing-Impaired Child: Theory and Practice , 1976 .

[12]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Effects of Presentation Level on Phoneme and Sentence Recognition in Quiet by Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[13]  R. Schlauch,et al.  Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation. , 2007, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[14]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[15]  Wolfgang Gaggl,et al.  Recognition of Speech Presented at Soft to Loud Levels by Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients of Three Cochlear Implant Systems , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[16]  J. Jerger,et al.  Preferred Method For Clinical Determination Of Pure-Tone Thresholds , 1959 .

[17]  Susan Scollie,et al.  The Effect of Instantaneous Input Dynamic Range Setting on the Speech Perception of Children with the Nucleus 24 Implant , 2009, Ear and hearing.

[18]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Optimizing Cochlear Implant Speech Performance , 2003, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[19]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[20]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effect of increased IIDR in the nucleus freedom cochlear implant system. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[21]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[22]  M. Demorest,et al.  Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.