Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus(r) 24 cochlear implant system

Ramsden, Richard, Greenham, Paula, O'Driscoll, Martin, Mawman, Deborah, Proops, David, Craddock, Louise, Fielden, Claire, Graham, John, Meerton, Leah, Verschuur, Carl, Toner, Joseph, McAnnallen, Cecilia, Osborne, Jonathan, Doran, Maire, Gray, Roger and Pickerill, Margaret (2005) Evaluation of bilaterally implanted adult subjects with the nucleus(r) 24 cochlear implant system. Otology & Neurotology, 26, (5), 988-98. (doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22).


[img] PDF - Version of Record
Restricted to System admin

Download (2105Kb) | Request a copy


Objective: To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant.

Study Design: Repeated measures.

Patients: Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years.

Setting: Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom.

Main Outcome Measures: Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90[degrees].

Results: At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p < 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p < 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p < 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear.

Conclusions: There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.

Item Type: Article
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi:10.1097/01.mao.0000185075.58199.22
ISSNs: 1531-7129 (print)
Related URLs:
Subjects: R Medicine > RF Otorhinolaryngology
T Technology > TA Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
Divisions : University Structure - Pre August 2011 > Institute of Sound and Vibration Research > Human Sciences
ePrint ID: 28306
Accepted Date and Publication Date:
September 2005Published
Date Deposited: 28 Apr 2006
Last Modified: 31 Mar 2016 11:53
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/28306

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics