Background: A large number of different speech-in-noise (SIN) tests are available for testing cochlear implant (CI) recipients, but few studies have compared the different tests in the same patient population to assess how well their results correlate. Methods: A clinically representative group of 80 CI users conducted the Finnish versions of the matrix sentence test, the simplified matrix sentence test, and the digit triplet test. The results were analyzed for correlations between the different tests and for differences among the participants, including age and device modality. Results: Strong and statistically significant correlations were observed between all of the tests. No floor or ceiling effects were observed with any of the tests when using the adaptive test procedure. Age or the length of device use showed no correlation to SIN perception, but bilateral CI users showed slightly better results in comparison to unilateral or bimodal users. Conclusions: Three SIN tests that differ in length and complexity of the test material provided comparable results in a diverse CI user group.

Objectives: To investigate the effect of fixed and adaptive microphone directionality on speech reception threshold (SRT) in noise when compared to omnidirectional mode in unilateral cochlear-implant (CI) use for three different CI systems.Methods: Twenty-four CI recipients with bilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss participated in the study. Eight recipients of each CI system were enrolled, and their SRT in noise was measured when the speech and noise signals were co-located in the front to serve as a baseline. The acute effect of different microphone directionalities on SRT in noise was measured with the noise emanating at 90 degrees in the horizontal plane from the side of the CI sound processor (S0NCI).Results: When compared to the baseline condition, the individual data revealed fairly similar patterns within each CI system. In the S0NCI condition, the average improvement in SRT in noise for fixed and adaptive directionalities over the omnidirectional mode was statistically significant and ranged from 1.2 to 6.0 dB SNR and from 3.7 to 12.7 dB SNR depending on the CI system, respectively.Discussion: Directional microphones significantly improve SRT in noise for all three CI systems. However, relatively large differences were observed in the directional microphone efficacy between CI systems.

Bilateral cochlear implantation is increasing worldwide. In adults, bilateral cochlear implants (BICI) are often performed sequentially with a time delay between the first (CI1) and the second (CI2) implant. The benefits of BICI have been reported for well over a decade. This study aimed at investigating these benefits for a consecutive sample of adult patients. Improvements in speech-in-noise recognition after CI2 were followed up longitudinally for 12 months with the internationally comparable Finnish matrix sentence test. The test scores were statistically significantly better for BICI than for either CI alone in all assessments during the 12-month period. At the end of the follow-up period, the bilateral benefit for co-located speech and noise was 1.4 dB over CI1 and 1.7 dB over CI2, and when the noise was moved from the front to 90 degrees on the side, spatial release from masking amounted to an improvement of 2.5 dB in signal-to-noise ratio. To assess subjective improvements in hearing and in quality of life, two questionnaires were used. Both questionnaires revealed statistically significant improvements due to CI2 and BICI. The association between speech recognition in noise and background factors (duration of hearing loss/deafness, time between implants) or subjective improvements was markedly smaller than what has been previously reported on sequential BICI in adults. Despite the relatively heterogeneous sample, BICI improved hearing and quality of life.

Objectives: To assess are there learning-related improvements in the speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for the Finnish matrix sentence test (FMST) and the Finnish digit triplet test (FDTT) in repeated use over 12 months. Design: Test sessions were scheduled at 0, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, and each session included five FMST measurements and four FDTT measurements. The within-session and inter-session improvements in SRTs were analysed with a linear mixed model. Study sample: Fifteen young normal-hearing participants. Results: Statistically significant mean improvements of 2.0 dB SNR and 1.2 dB SNR were detected for the FMST and the FDTT, respectively, over the 12-month follow-up period. For the FMST, majority of the improvement occurred during the first two test sessions. For the FDTT, statistically significant differences were detected only in comparison to the first test session and to the first test measurement of every session over the 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: Repeated use of the FMST led to significant learning-related improvements, but the improvements appeared to plateau by the third test session. For the FDTT, the overall improvements were smaller, but a significant within-session difference between the first and consecutive FDTT measurements persisted throughout the test sessions.

Objective Speech-in-noise tests are widely used in hearing diagnostics but typically without reverberation, although reverberation is an inextricable part of everyday listening conditions. To support the development of more real-life-like test paradigms, the objective of this study was to explore how spatially reproduced reverberation affects speech recognition thresholds in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Design Thresholds were measured with a Finnish speech-in-noise test without reverberation and with two test conditions with reverberation times of similar to 0.9 and 1.8 s. Reverberant conditions were produced with a multichannel auralisation technique not used before in this context. Study sample Thirty-four normal-hearing and 14 hearing-impaired listeners participated in this study. Five people were tested with and without hearing aids. Results No significant differences between test conditions were found for the normal-hearing listeners. Results for the hearing-impaired listeners indicated better performance for the 0.9 s reverberation time compared to the reference and the 1.8 s conditions. Benefit from hearing aid use varied between individuals; for one person, an advantage was observed only with reverberation. Conclusions Auralisations may offer information on speech recognition performance that is not obtained with a test without reverberation. However, more complex stimuli and/or higher signal-to-noise ratios should be used in the future.

With computed tomography (CT), the delicate structures of the inner ear may be hard to visualise, which a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array can further complicate. The usefulness of a novel cone-beam CT device in CI recipient’s inner ear imaging was evaluated and the exposure parameters were optimised to attain adequate clinical image quality at the lowest effective dose (ED). Six temporal bones were implanted with a Cochlear Slim Straight electrode array and imaged with six different imaging protocols. Contrast-to-noise ratio was calculated for each imaging protocol, and three observers evaluated independently the image quality of each imaging protocol and temporal bone. The overall image quality of the inner ear structures did not differ between the imaging protocols and the most relevant inner ear structures of CI recipient’s inner ear can be visualised with a low ED. To visualise the most delicate structures in the inner ear, imaging protocols with higher radiation exposure may be required.