To compare speech perception outcomes between bilateral implantation (cochlear implants [CIs]) and bimodal rehabilitation (one CI on one side plus one hearing aid [HA] on the other side) and to explore the clinical factors that may cause asymmetric performances in speech intelligibility between the two ears in case of bilateral implantation. Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects becoming CI/CI) was possible from this dataset. Further analyses were conducted on the CI/CI subgroup to investigate a number of factors, such as implantation side, duration of hearing loss, amount of residual hearing, and use of HAs that may explain asymmetric performances of this subgroup. Intelligibility ranked scores in quiet and in noise were significantly greater with both CI/CI and CI/HA than with a CI-alone group, and improvement with CI/CI (+11% and +16% in quiet and in noise, respectively) was significantly better than with CI/HA (+6% and +9% in quiet and in noise, respectively). From the CI/HA group, only subjects with ranked preoperative aided speech scores >60% performed as well as CI/CI participants. Furthermore, CI/CI subjects displayed significantly lower preoperative aided speech scores on average compared with that displayed by CI/HA subjects. Routine clinical data available from the present database did not explain the asymmetrical results of bilateral implantation. This retrospective study, based on basic speech audiometry (no lateralization cues), indicates that, on average, a second CI is likely to provide slightly better postoperative speech outcome than an additional HA for people with very low preoperative performance. These results may be taken into consideration to refine surgical indications for CIs.

Contemporary speech and language interventions are not limited to disabilities but embrace the pragmatics of communication behaviors from the perspective of functional social participation. Accordingly, current speech and language therapies for deaf and hard-of-hearing children include a broad spectrum of approaches and techniques. This paper explores contemporary approaches and techniques for speech and oral language interventions for deaf and hard-of-hearing children using hearing devices, evidence of efficacy and how they are implemented in diverse clinical practices.

Objectives: The goal of this work was to develop and normalise an international French version of the AzBio sentence test. Design: A corpus of 1000 sentences was generated. These sentences were recorded with four talkers and processed through a four-channel cochlear implant simulation. The mean intelligibility for each sentence achieved by 16 normal-hearing listeners was computed. The consecutively ordered 165 sentences from each talker rendering an average score of 85% were sequentially assigned to 33 lists of 20 sentences. All lists were presented to 30 normal-hearing and 25 hearing-impaired listeners in order to verify their equivalency. Thirty normal-hearing adults were also recruited to assess the test’s psychometrics and define norms. Results: The results of the list equivalency validation study showed no significant differences in percent correct scores for 30 sentence lists. A binomial distribution model was used to estimate the 95% critical differences for each potential percentage score. Normalization data showed an average performance between 96% and 99% with a very low standard deviation. Conclusions: With a set of 30 lists, researchers and clinicians can use the FrBio to evaluate a large number of experimental conditions; changes in performance over time or across conditions can then be tracked.

This project proposes to assess the relation between the electrical stapedius reflex threshold (eSRT) and comfort levels in users of the Digisonic SP cochlear implant. Cross-sectional study, where eSRTs are compared to the comfort current levels at 2 weeks and at 1-year post-fitting in a group of 11 adults getting a significant improvement in open set speech recognition from a Digisonic SP cochlear implant. The linear relation between eSRTs and comfort levels results in Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.65 (P < 0.01; at 2 weeks) to 0.60 (P < 0.05; at 1 year). The comfort levels can be predicted from the eSRTs for the Digisonic SP device from the model equation C level = 19.12 + 0.41*eSRT within a clinically acceptable margin of error. Reflex thresholds could be obtained in most participants, and in most channels of the Digisonic implant. The equation model appears as a quite reliable predictor of comfort levels for users of this device.

In recent years there has been an increasing percentage of cochlear implant (CI) users who have usable residual hearing in the contralateral, nonimplanted ear, typically aided by acoustic amplification. This raises the issue of the extent to which the signal presented through the cochlear implant may influence how listeners process information in the acoustically stimulated ear. This multicenter retrospective study examined pre- to postoperative changes in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear, the implanted ear, and both together. Results in the latter two conditions showed the expected increases, but speech perception in the nonimplanted ear showed a modest yet meaningful decrease that could not be completely explained by changes in unaided thresholds, hearing aid malfunction, or several other demographic variables. Decreases in speech perception in the nonimplanted ear were more likely in individuals who had better levels of speech perception in the implanted ear, and in those who had better speech perception in the implanted than in the nonimplanted ear. This raises the possibility that, in some cases, bimodal listeners may rely on the higher quality signal provided by the implant and may disregard or even neglect the input provided by the nonimplanted ear.