ABSTRACT
CONCLUSION: The Harmony processor was found to be reliable, comfortable and offered a substantially increased battery life compared with the previous generation processor. No significant improvement in speech understanding with HiRes was demonstrated from objective measures, but the majority of subjects showed a clear subjective preference for the combination HiRes 120/Harmony processor. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate experience with the Harmony™ sound processor, together with the HiRes 120 strategy. METHODS: Postlingually deafened adults implanted with a CII or HiRes 90K were included and divided into three groups: (1) experienced users using the Platinum body-worn processor; (2) experienced users who had been using other processors; (3) new users with the Harmony processor from first fitting. The latter group entered a randomized crossover protocol where half were initially fitted with HiRes and half with HiRes 120. The initial strategy was used for 3 months and the alternative for a further 3 months. Speech perception tests and questionnaires were performed. RESULTS: The study included 65 subjects. Implementing HiRes 120 was straightforward. The speech test group results did not show significant differences between HiRes and HiRes 120. However, the questionnaires showed significantly higher ratings for HiRes 120 in some instances. Subjects were highly satisfied with the Harmony processor.
Subject(s)
Cochlear Implants , Deafness/rehabilitation , Speech Perception , Adult , Auditory Perception , Cross-Over Studies , Electric Power Supplies , Ergonomics , Humans , Middle Aged , Music , Patient Satisfaction , Prosthesis Design , Signal Processing, Computer-AssistedSubject(s)
Acoustic Stimulation/methods , Hearing Aids , Hearing Loss/therapy , Adult , Audiometry/methods , Cochlear Implants , Cohort Studies , Europe , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hearing Loss/diagnosis , Humans , Loudness Perception , Male , Middle Aged , Music , Patient Satisfaction , Pitch Perception , Prosthesis Design , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the speech perception benefits of bilateral implantation for subjects who already have one implant. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures. PATIENTS: Thirty adult cochlear implant users who received their second implant from 1 to 7 years with a mean of 3 years after their first device. Ages ranged from 29 to 82 years with a mean of 57 years. SETTING: Tertiary referral centers across the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monosyllabic consonant-nucleus-consonant words and City University of New York sentences in quiet with coincident speech and noise and with the noise spatially separated from the speech by +/-90 degrees . RESULTS: At 9 months, results showed the second ear in noise was 13.9 +/- 5.9% worse than the first ear (p < 0.001); a significant binaural advantage of 12.6 +/- 5.4% (p < 0.001) over the first ear alone for speech and noise from the front; a 21 +/- 6% (p < 0.001) binaural advantage over the first ear alone when noise was ipsilateral to the first ear; no binaural advantage when noise was contralateral to the first ear. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant bilateral advantage of adding a second ear for this group. We were unable to predict when the second ear would be the better performing ear, and by implanting both ears, we guarantee implanting the better ear. Sequential implantation with long delays between ears has resulted in poor second ear performance for some subjects and has limited the degree of bilateral benefit that can be obtained by these users. The dual microphone does not provide equivalent benefit to bilateral implants.
