PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(03): 144-156
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722987
Research Article

Maximizing Cochlear Implant Outcomes with Short-Term Aural Rehabilitation

Claire Marcus Bernstein   *
1   Department of Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Diane Majerus Brewer   *
2   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Matthew H. Bakke
1   Department of Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences, Gallaudet University, Washington, District of Columbia
,
Anne D. Olson
3   Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Kentucky College of Health Sciences, Lexington, Kentucky
,
Elizabeth Jackson Machmer
4   National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Center for Educational Research Partnerships, Rochester, New York
,
Jaclyn B. Spitzer
5   Columbia University Medical Center, Audiology and Speech Pathology in Otolaryngology, New York, New York
6   Montclair State University, Communication Sciences and Disorders, Bloomfield, New Jersey
,
Paula C. Schauer
7   Prince Georges County School System, Instructional Specialist Audiology, Landover, Maryland
,
Sarah A. Sydlowski
8   The Cleveland Clinic, Hearing Implant Program, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Harry Levitt
9   Advanced Hearing Concepts, Bodega Bay, California
› Institutsangaben Funding This research was supported by Grant #H133E80006 from the United States Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). Funding for this research was also provided by Grant # 90RE5020 from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), which is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Increasing numbers of adults are receiving cochlear implants (CIs) and many achieve high levels of speech perception and improved quality of life. However, a proportion of implant recipients still struggle due to limited speech recognition and/or greater communication demands in their daily lives. For these individuals a program of aural rehabilitation (AR) has the potential to improve outcomes.

Purpose The study investigated the effects of a short-term AR intervention on speech recognition, functional communication, and psychosocial outcomes in post lingually deafened adult CI users.

Research Design The experimental design was a multisite clinical study with participants randomized to either an AR treatment or active control group. Each group completed 6 weekly 90-minute individual treatment sessions. Assessments were completed pretreatment, 1 week and 2 months post-treatment.

Study Sample Twenty-five post lingually deafened adult CI recipients participated. AR group: mean age 66.2 (48–80); nine females, four males; months postactivation 7.7 (3–16); mean years severe to profound deafness 18.4 (2–40). Active control group: mean age 62.8 (47–85); eight females, four males; months postactivation 7.0 (3–13); mean years severe to profound deafness 18.8 (1–55).

Intervention The AR protocol consisted of auditory training (words, sentences, speech tracking), and psychosocial counseling (informational and communication strategies). Active control group participants engaged in cognitive stimulation activities (e.g., crosswords, sudoku, etc.).

Data Collection and Analysis Repeated measures ANOVA or analysis of variance, MANOVA or multivariate analysis of variance, and planned contrasts were used to compare group performance on the following measures: CasperSent; Hearing Handicap Inventory; Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire; Client Oriented Scale of Improvement; Glasgow Benefit Inventory.

Results The AR group showed statistically significant improvements on speech recognition performance, psychosocial function, and communication goals with no significant improvement seen in the control group. The two groups were statistically equivalent on all outcome measures at preassessment. The robust improvements for the AR group were maintained at 2 months post-treatment.

Conclusion Results of this clinical study provide evidence that a short-term AR intervention protocol can maximize outcomes for adult post lingually deafened CI users. The impact of this brief multidimensional AR intervention to extend CI benefit is compelling, and may serve as a template for best practices with adult CI users.

Keywords

cochlear implants - speech recognition - aural rehabilitation - auditory training - psychosocial outcomes

* Cofirst authors.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. Juli 2019

Angenommen: 28. August 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. April 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gaylor JM, Raman G, Chung M. et al. Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2013; 139 (03) 265-272
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Arnoldner C, Lin VY, Honeder C, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J. Ten-year health-related quality of life in cochlear implant recipients: prospective SF-36 data with SF-6D conversion. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (01) 278-282
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Capretta NR, Moberly AC. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (03) 699-706
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Holder JT, Dwyer NC, Gifford RH. Duration of processor use per day is significantly correlated with speech recognition abilities in adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (02) e227-e231
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Moberly AC, Bates C, Harris MS, Pisoni DB. The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (10) 1522-1528
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear Res 2008; 242 (1-2): 198-208
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Stacey PC, Raine CH, O'Donoghue GM, Tapper L, Twomey T, Summerfield AQ. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training for adult users of cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (05) 347-356
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Bernstein C, Bakke M, Mazevski A. et al. Benefits of speech tracking training on sentence recognition, tracking rate, and self-assessed communication function in adult cochlear implant users. J Acad Rehabilitative Audiol 2012; 45: 11-39
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sweetow R, Palmer CV. Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (07) 494-504
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Chisolm T, Arnold M. Evidence about the effectiveness of aural rehabilitation programs for adults. In: Wong L, Hickson L. eds. Evidence-Based Practice in Audiology. San Diego, CA: Plural; 2012: 237-266
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Henshaw H, Ferguson MA. Efficacy of individual computer-based auditory training for people with hearing loss: a systematic review of the evidence. PLoS One 2013; 8 (05) e62836
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Hearing Health Care for Adults: Priorities for Improving Access and Affordability. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2016
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Alfakir R, Hall M, Holmes A. How can the success post cochlear implant be measured or defined in older adults? Implications of the International Classification of Functioning Brief Core Set for Hearing Loss. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 3: 302
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL. et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (04) 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Preminger JE, Yoo JK. Do group audiologic rehabilitation activities influence psychosocial outcomes?. Am J Audiol 2010; 19 (02) 109-125
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hawthorne G, Hogan A, Giles E. et al. Evaluating the health-related quality of life effects of cochlear implants: a prospective study of an adult cochlear implant program. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (04) 183-192
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Heydebrand G, Mauze E, Tye-Murray N, Binzer S, Skinner M. The efficacy of a structured group therapy intervention in improving communication and coping skills for adult cochlear implant recipients. Int J Audiol 2005; 44 (05) 272-280
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Harris MS, Capretta NR, Henning SC, Feeney L, Pitt MA, Moberly AC. Postoperative rehabilitation strategies used by adults with cochlear implants: a pilot study. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 2016; 1 (03) 42-48
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Clark JH, Yeagle J, Arbaje AI, Lin FR, Niparko JK, Francis HW. Cochlear implant rehabilitation in older adults: literature review and proposal of a conceptual framework. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012; 60 (10) 1936-1945
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, Perkins AJ, Hendrie HC. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care 2002; 40 (09) 771-781
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Plant G, Anderson I. TesTrax. Innsbruck: MED-EL; 2005
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Boothroyd A. CasperSent: a program for computer-assisted speech perception testing and training at the sentence level. J Acad Rehabilitative Audiol 2008; 41: 31-52
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Boothroyd A. CD: CasperSent 3.4 Computer Assisted Speech Perception Testing and Training Manual; 2006
    PubMed
  • 24 Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 1982; 3 (03) 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (01) 27-43
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123 (06) 756-765
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Robinson K, Gatehouse S, Browning GG. Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105 (06) 415-422
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Boothroyd A, Hnath-Chisolm T, Hanin L, Kishon-Rabin L. Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear Hear 1988; 9 (06) 306-312
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Hillyer J, Elkins E, Hazlewood C, Watson SD, Arenberg JG, Parbery-Clark A. Assessing cognitive abilities in high-performing cochlear implant users. Front Neurosci 2019; 12: 1056
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F. et al. Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 2012; 7 (11) e48739
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Petersen B, Gjedde A, Wallentin M, Vuust P. Cortical plasticity after cochlear implantation. Neural Plast 2013; 2013: 318521
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Olds C, Pollonini L, Abaya H. et al. Cortical activation patterns correlate with speech understanding after cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (03) e160-e172
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Green KM, Ramsden RT, Julyan PJ, Hastings DE. Cortical plasticity in the first year after cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2008; 9 (02) 103-117
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Merabet LB, Pascual-Leone A. Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010; 11 (01) 44-52
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. Ear Hear 1986; 7 (05) 295-299
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Ferguson MA, Henshaw H. Auditory training can improve working memory, attention, and communication in adverse conditions for adults with hearing loss. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 556
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar