{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Factors to Describe the Outcome Characteristics of a CI Recipient.
{Author}: Hey M;Kogel K;Dambon J;Mewes A;Jürgens T;Hocke T;
{Journal}: J Clin Med
{Volume}: 13
{Issue}: 15
{Year}: 2024 Jul 29
{Factor}: 4.964
{DOI}: 10.3390/jcm13154436
{Abstract}: Background: In cochlear implant (CI) treatment, there is a large variability in outcome. The aim of our study was to identify the independent audiometric measures that are most directly relevant for describing this variability in outcome characteristics of CI recipients. An extended audiometric test battery was used with selected adult patients in order to characterize the full range of CI outcomes. Methods: CI users were recruited for this study on the basis of their postoperative results and divided into three groups: low (1st quartile), moderate (medium decentile), and high hearing performance (4th quartile). Speech recognition was measured in quiet by using (i) monosyllabic words (40-80 dB SPL), (ii) speech reception threshold (SRT) for numbers, and (iii) the German matrix test in noise. In order to reconstruct demanding everyday listening situations in the clinic, the temporal characteristics of the background noise and the spatial arrangements of the signal sources were varied for tests in noise. In addition, a survey was conducted using the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities (SSQ) questionnaire and the Listening Effort (LE) questionnaire. Results: Fifteen subjects per group were examined (total N = 45), who did not differ significantly in terms of age, time after CI surgery, or CI use behavior. The groups differed mainly in the results of speech audiometry. For speech recognition, significant differences were found between the three groups for the monosyllabic tests in quiet and for the sentences in stationary (S0°N0°) and fluctuating (S0°NCI) noise. Word comprehension and sentence comprehension in quiet were both strongly correlated with the SRT in noise. This observation was also confirmed by a factor analysis. No significant differences were found between the three groups for the SSQ questionnaire and the LE questionnaire results. The results of the factor analysis indicate that speech recognition in noise provides information highly comparable to information from speech intelligibility in quiet. Conclusions: The factor analysis highlighted three components describing the postoperative outcome of CI patients. These were (i) the audiometrically measured supra-threshold speech recognition and (ii) near-threshold audibility, as well as (iii) the subjective assessment of the relationship to real life as determined by the questionnaires. These parameters appear well suited to setting up a framework for a test battery to assess CI outcomes.