Speech Recognition Materials and Ceiling Effects: Considerations for Cochlear Implant Programs

• Published in: Audiology & neurotology Vol. 13; no. 3; pp. 193 - 205
• Main Authors: Gifford, René H., Shallop, Jon K., Peterson, Anna Mary
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel, Switzerland Karger 01.01.2008; S. Karger AG
• Subjects: Audiology; Biological and medical sciences; Cochlear Implantation; Cochlear implants; Deafness; Functional Laterality; Hearing Aids; Hearing Loss - classification; Hearing Loss - etiology; Hearing Loss - therapy; Humans; Medical sciences; Original Paper; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Pattern Recognition, Physiological - physiology; Postoperative Period; Speech Discrimination Tests; Speech Perception; Speech Reception Threshold Test; Treatment Outcome; Voice recognition; Ceiling effects; Cochlear implants; Implant candidacy; Speech recognition; Cochlear implant; ENT
• ISSN: 1420-3030; 1421-9700; 1421-9700
• DOI: 10.1159/000113510

Cochlear implant recipients have demonstrated remarkable increases in speech perception since US FDA approval was granted in 1984. Improved performance is due to a number of factors including improved cochlear implant technology, evolving speech coding strategies, and individuals with increasingly more residual hearing receiving implants. Despite this evolution, the same recommendations for pre- and postimplant speech recognition testing have been in place for over 10 years in the United States. To determine whether new recommendations are warranted, speech perception performance was assessed for 156 adult, postlingually deafened implant recipients as well as 50 hearing aid users on monosyllabic word recognition (CNC) and sentence recognition in quiet (HINT and AzBio sentences) and in noise (BKB-SIN). Results demonstrated that for HINT sentences in quiet, 28% of the subjects tested achieved maximum performance of 100% correct and that scores did not agree well with monosyllables (CNC) or sentence recognition in noise (BKB-SIN). For a more difficult sentence recognition material (AzBio), only 0.7% of the subjects achieved 100% performance and scores were in much better agreement with monosyllables and sentence recognition in noise. These results suggest that more difficult materials are needed to assess speech perception performance of postimplant patients – and perhaps also for determining implant candidacy.