Moberly, Aaron C

Purpose: An Adult Cochlear Implant Aural Rehabilitation Special Interest Group was formed in 2023. Members represent interdisciplinary collaborators, including audiologists, speech-language pathologists, surgeons, nonclinical administrators, manufacturer/industry representatives, and researchers. Current perspectives of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients regarding aural rehabilitation (AR) remain unknown and understudied. The aim of this study is to survey adult CI recipients to determine their perspectives on the AR process. Method: A web-based national survey was sent to adult CI recipients through multiple channels. The survey asked recipients about their demographics, state of residence, hearing loss history, and device configuration. Questions probed recipients' experiences of learning about AR options, services used, definitions of AR, and perceived value of services received. Questions were also asked about barriers to AR services, preoperative counseling, and satisfaction with their decision to pursue a CI. Results: A total of 115 CI recipients responded to the survey. Results revealed a relative lack of information provided to many CI recipients regarding AR services. Many CI recipients reported wishing they had received additional resources in the areas of music training and equipment troubleshooting. Most participants reported that both one-on-one clinician-guided AR and independent listening practice were effective methods of AR. Conclusions: Findings shed light on current gaps in providing the most effective AR services, which will need to be addressed to optimize hearing health care and outcomes for adult CI recipients. Future work should include outreach to a broader representation of CI users to expand our understanding of AR resources, education, and limitations.

Objective: to review evidence on the efficacy of auditory training in adult cochlear implant recipients. Data Sources: PRISMA guidelines for a systematic review of the literature were followed. PubMed, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were queried on 29 June 2023 for terms involving cochlear implantation and auditory training. Studies were limited to the English language and adult patient populations. Study Selection: Three authors independently reviewed publications for inclusion in the review based on a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria encompassed adult cochlear implant populations, an analysis of clinician- or patient-directed auditory training, and an analysis of one or more measures of speech recognition and/or patient-reported outcome. Exclusion criteria included studies with only pediatric implant populations, music or localization training in isolation, and single-sample case studies. Data Extraction: The data were collected regarding study design, patient population, auditory training modality, auditory training timing, speech outcomes, and data on the durability of outcomes. A quality assessment of the literature was performed using a quality metric adapted from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group guidelines. Data Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: Data were qualitatively summarized for 23 studies. All but four studies demonstrated significant improvement in at least one measured or patient-reported outcome measure with training. For 11 studies with sufficient data reporting, pre-intervention and post-intervention pooled means of different outcome measures were compared for 132 patients using meta-analysis. Patient-direct training was associated with significant improvement in vowel-phoneme recognition and speech recognition in noise (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively), and clinician-directed training showed significant improvement in sentence recognition in noise (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The literature on auditory training for adult cochlear implant recipients is limited and heterogeneous, including a small number of studies with limited levels of evidence and external validity. However, the current evidence suggests that auditory training can improve speech recognition in adult cochlear implant recipients.

ObjectivesExisting cochlear implant (CI) outcomes research demonstrates a high degree of variability in device effectiveness among experienced CI users. Increasing evidence suggests that verbal learning and memory (VL&M) may have an influence on speech recognition with CIs. This study examined the relations in CI users between visual measures of VL&M and speech recognition in a series of models that also incorporated spectro‐temporal discrimination. Predictions were that (1) speech recognition would be associated with VL&M abilities and (2) VL&M would contribute to speech recognition outcomes above and beyond spectro‐temporal discrimination in multivariable models of speech recognition.MethodsThis cross‐sectional study included 30 adult postlingually deaf experienced CI users who completed a nonauditory visual version of the California Verbal Learning Test‐Second Edition (v‐CVLT‐II) to assess VL&M, and the Spectral‐Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT), an auditory measure of spectro‐temporal processing. Participants also completed a battery of word and sentence recognition tasks.ResultsCI users showed significant correlations between some v‐CVLT‐II measures (short‐delay free‐ and cued‐recall, retroactive interference, and “subjective” organizational recall strategies) and speech recognition measures. Performance on the SMRT was correlated with all speech recognition measures. Hierarchical multivariable linear regression analyses showed that SMRT performance accounted for a significant degree of speech recognition outcome variance. Moreover, for all speech recognition measures, VL&M scores contributed independently in addition to SMRT.ConclusionMeasures of spectro‐temporal discrimination and VL&M were associated with speech recognition in CI users. After accounting for spectro‐temporal discrimination, VL&M contributed independently to performance on measures of speech recognition for words and sentences produced by single and multiple talkers.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 133:661–669, 2023