Skip to main content
Log in

Benefits in noise from sound processor upgrade in thirty-three cochlear implant users for more than 20 years

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Some oldest patients rehabilitated with a cochlear implant more than 20 years ago could still be upgraded with new generations of speech processor (SP). The aim of this study was to show the benefit of a recent generation of SP in this population.

Methods

A monocentric prospective study was designed to evaluate the performance of 33 ancient CI22M users implanted between 1989 and 1997 and upgraded with the late compatible sound processor CP900. Performance was evaluated in quiet and noise with Framatix, an automated adaptative test.

Results

Performance using Framatix significantly improved with the CP900, with a decrease of the median speech perception threshold of 6 dB in quiet (p < 0.05) and 5,3 dB in noise (p < 0.0005). No subjective benefit using the APHAB questionnaire was observed.

Conclusion

Upgrading of cochlear implant recipients who were implanted more than 20 years ago with recent compatible and new technological SP provide benefit in speech recognition in noise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Kral A, Kronenberger WG, Pisoni D et al (2016) Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: a connectome model. Lancet Neurol 15:610–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(16)00034-X

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Livingston G, Sommerlad A, Orgeta V et al (2017) Dementia prevention, intervention, and care. Lancet 390(10113):2673–2734. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31363-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mosnier I, Vanier A, Bonnard D et al (2018) Long-term cognitive prognosis of profoundly deaf older adults after hearing rehabilitation using cochlear implants: cognitive prognosis after hearing rehabilitation. J Am Geriatr Soc 66(8):1553–1561. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson BS, Dorman MF (2008) Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hearing Res 242(1–2):3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Mosnier I, Marx M, Venail F, Loundon N, Roux-Vaillard S, Sterkers O (2014) Benefits from upgrade to the CP810 sound processor for nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 271(1):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-013-2381-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mosnier I, Mathias N, Flament J et al (2017) Benefit of the UltraZoom beamforming technology in noise in cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 274(9):3335–3342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4651-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Franco-Vidal V, Parietti-Winkler C, Guevara N et al (2020) The Oticon Medical Neuro Zti cochlear implant and the Neuro 2 sound processor: multicentric evaluation of outcomes in adults and children. Int J Audiol. 59(2):153–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jansen S, Luts H, Wagener KC et al (2012) Comparison of three types of French speech-in-noise tests: a multi-center study. Int J Audiol 51(3):164–173. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cochlear Nucleus® reliability report June 2019. https://www.cochlear.com

  11. Biever A, Gilden J, Zwolan T et al (2018) Upgrade to Nucleus 6 in previous generation cochlear sound processor recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 29:802–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bruijnzeel H, Bezdjian A, Lesinski-Schiedat A et al (2017) Evaluation of pediatric cochlear implant care throughout Europe: is European pediatric cochlear implant care performed according to guidelines? Cochlear Implants Int 18:287–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH (2018) Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hearing 22:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the help of Solange Lator for assistance in data collection.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Mosnier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from each subject before enrolment into the study (CNIL n° 2040853v0).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mosnier, I., Sterkers, O., Nguyen, Y. et al. Benefits in noise from sound processor upgrade in thirty-three cochlear implant users for more than 20 years. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 827–831 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06144-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06144-y

Keywords

Navigation