Barriers to Early Progress in Adult Cochlear Implant Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients obtain varying levels of speech perception from their device. Adult CI users adapt quickly to their CI if they have no peripheral "bottom-up" or neurocognitive "top-down" limiting factors. Our objective here was to understand the influence of limiting factors on the progression of sentence understanding in quiet and in noise, initially and over time. We hypothesized that the presence of limiting factors, detected using a short test battery, would predictably influence sentence recognition with practical consequences. We aimed to validate the test battery by comparing the presence of limiting factors and the success criteria of >90% sentence understanding in quiet 1 month after activation. DESIGN: The study was a single-clinic, cross-sectional, retrospective design incorporating 32 adult unilateral Nucleus CI users aged 27 to 90 years (mean = 70, SD = 13.5). Postoperative outcome was assessed through sentence recognition scores in quiet and in varying signal to noise ratios at 1 day, 1 to 2 months, and up to 2 years. Our clinic's standard test battery comprises physiological and neurocognitive measures. Physiological measures included electrically evoked compound action potentials for recovery function, spread of excitation, and polarity effect. To evaluate general cognitive function, inhibition, and phonological awareness, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening test, the Stroop Color-Word Test, and tests 3 and 4 of the French Assessment of Reading Skills in Adults over 16 years of age, respectively were performed. Physiological scores were considered abnormal, and therefore limiting, when total neural recovery periods and polarity effects, for both apical and basal electrode positions, were >1.65 SDs from the population mean. A spread of excitation of >6 electrode units was also considered limiting. For the neurocognitive tests, scores poorer than 1.65 SDs from published normal population means were considered limiting. RESULTS: At 1 month, 13 out of 32 CI users scored ≥90% sentence recognition in quiet with no significant dependence on age. Subjects with no limiting peripheral or neurocognitive factors were 8.5 times more likely to achieve ≥90% score in quiet at 1 month after CI switch-on ( p = 0.010). In our sample, we detected 4 out of 32 cases with peripheral limiting factors that related to neural health or poor electrode-neural interface at both apical and basal positions. In contrast, neurocognitive limiting factors were identified in 14 out of 32 subjects. Early sentence recognition scores were predictive of long-term sentence recognition thresholds in noise such that limiting factors appeared to be of continuous influence. CONCLUSIONS: Both peripheral and neurocognitive processing factors affect early sentence recognition after CI activation. Peripheral limiting factors may have been detected less often than neurocognitive limiting factors because they were defined using sample-based criteria versus normal population-based criteria. Early performance was generally predictive of long-term performance. Understanding the measurable covariables that limit CI performance may inform follow-up and improve counseling. A score of ≥90% for sentence recognition in quiet at 1 month may be used to define successful progress; whereas, lower scores indicate the need for diagnostic testing and ongoing rehabilitation. Our findings suggest that sentence test scores as early as 1 day after activation can provide vital information for the new CI user and indicate the need for rehabilitation follow-up.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".