Kevin R McMahon1, Aaron C Moberly1, Valeriy Shafiro2, Michael S Harris3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2. Department of Communication Disorders and Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) users have better environmental sound awareness (ESA) compared with adult patients eligible for CIs who have not yet undergone implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A group of 39 postlingually deaf adult patients who are experienced CI users (ECI), and a group of 20 postlingually deaf adult patients who are cochlear implant candidates (CIC) awaiting implantation. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Environmental sound awareness as measured by accuracy (percent correct) using the computerized, Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification (FEST-I). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between ESA in our sample of ECI users versus CIC patients. The ECI users scored an average FEST-I accuracy of 59.9% (SD 14.3). In comparison, the CICs had an average FEST-I accuracy of 54.7% (SD 26.4). This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, despite the commonly held notion that improved ESA may be a benefit of cochlear implantation, our sample of ECI users did not demonstrate superior performance compared with CICs.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if postlingually deaf adult cochlear implant (CI) users have better environmental sound awareness (ESA) compared with adult patients eligible for CIs who have not yet undergone implantation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: A group of 39 postlingually deaf adult patients who are experienced CI users (ECI), and a group of 20 postlingually deaf adult patients who are cochlear implant candidates (CIC) awaiting implantation. INTERVENTION: Cochlear implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Environmental sound awareness as measured by accuracy (percent correct) using the computerized, Familiar Environmental Sounds Test-Identification (FEST-I). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between ESA in our sample of ECI users versus CIC patients. The ECI users scored an average FEST-I accuracy of 59.9% (SD 14.3). In comparison, the CICs had an average FEST-I accuracy of 54.7% (SD 26.4). This difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, despite the commonly held notion that improved ESA may be a benefit of cochlear implantation, our sample of ECI users did not demonstrate superior performance compared with CICs.
Authors: James W Lewis; Frederic L Wightman; Julie A Brefczynski; Raymond E Phinney; Jeffrey R Binder; Edgar A DeYoe Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2004-05-27 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Michael S Harris; Aaron C Moberly; Ben L Hamel; Kara Vasil; Christina L Runge; William J Riggs; Valeriy Shafiro Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 2.674