Cochlear implants (CIs) are the state-of-the-art therapy for individuals with severe to profound hearing loss, providing them with good functional hearing. Nevertheless, speech understanding in background noise remains a significant challenge. The purposes of this study were to: (1) conduct a novel within-study comparison of speech-in-noise performance across ages in different populations of CI and normal hearing (NH) listeners using an adaptive sentence-in-noise test, and (2) examine the relative contribution of sensory information and cognitive–linguistic factors to performance. Forty CI users (mean age 20 years) were divided into “early-implanted” 6 years (n = 11), all prelingually deafened, and “progressively deafened” (n = 13). The control group comprised 136 NH subjects (80 children, 56 adults). Testing included the Hebrew Matrix test, word recognition in quiet, and linguistic and cognitive tests. Results show poorer performance in noise for CI users across populations and ages compared to NH peers, and age at implantation and word recognition in quiet were found to be contributing factors. For those recognizing 50% or more of the words in quiet (n = 27), non-verbal intelligence and receptive vocabulary explained 63% of the variance in noise. This information helps delineate the relative contribution of top-down and bottom-up skills for speech recognition in noise and can help set expectations in CI counseling.

Conclusion Cochlea can be directly excited by fluid (soft-tissue) stimulation. Objective To determine whether there is no difference in auditory-nerve-brainstem evoked response (ABR) thresholds to fluid stimulation between normal and animal models of post radical-mastoidectomy, as seen in a previous human study. Background It has been shown in humans that hearing can be elicited with stimulation to fluid in the external auditory meatus (EAM), and radical-mastoidectomy cavity. These groups differed in age, initial hearing, and drilling exposure. To overcome this difference, experiments were conducted in sand-rats, first intact, and after inducing a radical-mastoidectomy. Methods The EAM of five sand-rats was filled with 0.3 ml saline. ABR thresholds were determined in response to vibratory stimulation by a clinical bone-vibrator with a plastic rod, applied to the saline in the EAM. Then the tympanic membrane was removed, and malleus dislocated (radical-mastoidectomy model). The cavity was filled with 0.45 ml saline and the ABR threshold was determined in response to vibratory stimulation to the cavity fluid. Results There was no difference in ABR fluid thresholds to EAM and mastoidectomy cavity stimulation. Air-conduction stimulation from the bone-vibrator was not involved (conductive loss due to fluid). Bone-conduction stimulation was not involved (large difference in acoustic impedance between fluid and bone).