Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct 9:17:1247269.
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1247269. eCollection 2023.

Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation

Affiliations

Cochlear implantation in unilateral hearing loss: impact of short- to medium-term auditory deprivation

Mohammed N Ullah et al. Front Neurosci. .

Abstract

Introduction: Single sided deafness (SSD) results in profound cortical reorganization that presents clinically with a significant impact on sound localization and speech comprehension. Cochlear implantation (CI) has been approved for two manufacturers' devices in the United States to restore bilateral function in SSD patients with up to 10 years of auditory deprivation. However, there is great variability in auditory performance and it remains unclear how auditory deprivation affects CI benefits within this 10-year window. This prospective study explores how measured auditory performance relates to real-world experience and device use in a cohort of SSD-CI subjects who have between 0 and 10 years of auditory deprivation.

Methods: Subjects were assessed before implantation and 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-CI activation via Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word recognition and Arizona Biomedical Institute (AzBio) sentence recognition in varying spatial speech and noise presentations that simulate head shadow, squelch, and summation effects (S0N0, SSSDNNH, SNHNSSD; 0 = front, SSD = impacted ear, NH = normal hearing ear). Patient-centered assessments were performed using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ), and Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Device use data was acquired from manufacturer software. Further subgroup analysis was performed on data stratified by <5 years and 5-10 years duration of deafness.

Results: In the SSD ear, median (IQR) CNC word scores pre-implant and at 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-implant were 0% (0-0%), 24% (8-44%), 28% (4-44%), and 18% (7-33%), respectively. At 6 months post-activation, AzBio scores in S0N0 and SSSDNNH configurations (n = 25) demonstrated statistically significant increases in performance by 5% (p = 0.03) and 20% (p = 0.005), respectively. The median HUI3 score was 0.56 pre-implant, lower than scores for common conditions such as anxiety (0.68) and diabetes (0.77), and comparable to stroke (0.58). Scores improved to 0.83 (0.71-0.91) by 3 months post-activation. These audiologic and subjective benefits were observed even in patients with longer durations of deafness.

Discussion: By merging CI-associated changes in objective and patient-centered measures of auditory function, our findings implicate central mechanisms of auditory compensation and adaptation critical in auditory performance after SSD-CI and quantify the extent to which they affect the real-world experience reported by individuals.

Keywords: auditory deprivation; cochlear implant; health utility; single-sided deafness; spatial hearing; speech perception.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
SSD patients at baseline; NH, normal hearing ear; SSD, impacted ear. (A) Baseline audiogram (B) Word recognition scores (NU-6). Data presented as mean ± 1 SD.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CNC word scores over time; red represents median (IQR) CNC word recognition scores over time. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3
Figure 3
AzBio sentence recognition scores over time stratified by duration of deafness (<5 years, 5–10 years) prior to implantation. (A) S0N0: speech and noise projected from in front of the subject. (B) SSSDNNH: speech projected toward the SSD ear and noise toward the normal ear. (C) SNHNSSD: speech projected toward the normal ear and noise toward SSD ear; NH, normal hearing ear (green check); SSD, impacted ear (red “X”). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ) scores to assess subjective spatial hearing experiences over time stratified by duration of deafness (<5 years, 5–10 years) prior to implantation. (A) Overall aggregate SHQ scores. (B) SHQ scores in speech-in-quiet scenarios. (C) SHQ scores in scenarios where speech and noise are both projected from in front of the subject. (D) SHQ scores in scenarios where speech and noise are separated. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI3) scores to assess health-related quality of life over time stratified by duration of deafness (< 5 years, 5–10 years) prior to implantation. (A) Overall HUI3 multi-attribute utility scores (B) HUI3 single-attribute hearing scores (C) HUI3 single-attribute emotion utility scores (D) HUI3 single-attribute pain utility scores (E) HUI3 multi-attribute utility scores for major common debilitating conditions and at baseline for SSD patients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Device use data over time stratified by duration of deafness (<5 years, 5–10 years).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agterberg M. J. H., Hol M. K. S., Van M. M., Wanrooij A. J., Opstal V., Snik A. F. M. (2014). Single-sided deafness and directional hearing: contribution of spectral cues and high-frequency hearing loss in the hearing ear. Front. Neurosci. 8:188. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00188, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anderson C. A., Lazard D. S., Hartley D. E. H. (2017). Plasticity in bilateral superior temporal cortex: effects of deafness and Cochlear implantation on auditory and visual speech processing. Hear Res. 343, 138–149. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.07.013, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arndt S., Laszig R., Aschendorff A., Hassepass F., Beck R., Wesarg T. (2017). Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing loss. HNO 65, 98–108. doi: 10.1007/s00106-016-0297-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asakawa K., Rolfson D., Senthilselvan A., Feeny D., Johnson J. A. (2008). Health utilities index mark 3 showed valid in Alzheimer disease, arthritis, and cataracts. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 61, 733–739. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.09.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bakal T. A., Milvae K. D. R., Chen C., Goupell M. J. (2021). Head shadow, summation, and squelch in bilateral Cochlear-implant users with linked automatic gain controls. Trends Hear. 25:233121652110181. doi: 10.1177/23312165211018147, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources