PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if acceptable noise levels (ANLs) are different in cochlear implant (CI) users than in listeners with normal hearing, (b) if ANLs are related to sentence reception thresholds in noise in CI users, and (c) if ANLs and subjective outcome measures are related in CI users. METHOD: ANLs and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994) were examined in 9 adult CI users and 15 adult listeners with normal hearing. In addition, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; R. M. Cox & G. C. Alexander, 1995) and a satisfaction questionnaire were administered to CI users only. RESULTS: Results indicated that (a) ANLs were not significantly different for CI users and listeners with normal hearing, (b) ANLs were not correlated with HINT values for either group, (c) ANL was not significantly correlated with APHAB scores, and (d) ANL was significantly correlated with overall CI benefit on the satisfaction questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: CI users with large ANLs reported more benefit from implants than those with small ANLs. The results of this preliminary study of ANL in CI users suggest that ANL can be used as a tool for evaluating processing in noise in individual CI users.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine (a) if acceptable noise levels (ANLs) are different in cochlear implant (CI) users than in listeners with normal hearing, (b) if ANLs are related to sentence reception thresholds in noise in CI users, and (c) if ANLs and subjective outcome measures are related in CI users. METHOD: ANLs and the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994) were examined in 9 adult CI users and 15 adult listeners with normal hearing. In addition, the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; R. M. Cox & G. C. Alexander, 1995) and a satisfaction questionnaire were administered to CI users only. RESULTS: Results indicated that (a) ANLs were not significantly different for CI users and listeners with normal hearing, (b) ANLs were not correlated with HINT values for either group, (c) ANL was not significantly correlated with APHAB scores, and (d) ANL was significantly correlated with overall CI benefit on the satisfaction questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: CI users with large ANLs reported more benefit from implants than those with small ANLs. The results of this preliminary study of ANL in CI users suggest that ANL can be used as a tool for evaluating processing in noise in individual CI users.