title: HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study compared speech perception benefits in adults implanted with the HiResolution (HiRes) Bionic Ear who used both conventional and HiRes sound processing. A battery of speech tests was used to determine which formats were most appropriate for documenting the wide range of benefit experienced by cochlear-implant users.
  
  
  METHODS
  A repeated-measures design was used to assess postimplantation speech perception in adults who received the HiResolution Bionic Ear in a recent clinical trial. Patients were fit first with conventional strategies and assessed after 3 months of use. Patients were then switched to HiRes sound processing and assessed again after 3 months of use. To assess the immediate effect of HiRes sound processing on speech perception performance, consonant recognition testing was performed in a subset of patients after 3 days of HiRes use and compared with their 3-month performance with conventional processing.
  
  
  METHODS
  Subjects were implanted and evaluated at 19 cochlear implant programs in the USA and Canada affiliated primarily with tertiary medical centers.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients were 51 postlinguistically deafened adults.
  
  
  METHODS
  Speech perception was assessed using CNC monosyllabic words, CID sentences and HINT sentences in quiet and noise. Consonant recognition testing was also administered to a subset of patients (n = 30) using the Iowa Consonant Test presented in quiet and noise. All patients completed a strategy preference questionnaire after 6 months of device use.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Consonant identification in quiet and noise improved significantly after only 3 days of HiRes use. The mean improvement from conventional to HiRes processing was significant on all speech perception tests. The largest differences occurred for the HINT sentences in noise. Ninety-six percent of the patients preferred HiRes to conventional sound processing. Ceiling effects occurred for both sentence tests in quiet.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although most patients improved after switching to HiRes sound processing, the greatest differences were seen in the 'poor' performers because 'good' performers often reached ceiling performance, especially on tests in quiet. Future evaluations of cochlear-implant benefit should make use of more difficult measures, especially for 'good' users. Nonetheless, a range of difficulty must remain in test materials to document benefit in the entire population of implant recipients.
authors.affiliation: Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, CA, USA. DawnK@advancedbionics.com
authors.forename: Dawn Burton
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Koch
authors.forename: Mary Joe
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Osberger
authors.forename: Phil
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Segel
authors.forename: Dorcas
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Kessler
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003054:Cochlear Implants; D034381:Hearing Loss / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D013063:Speech Discrimination Tests; D013067:Speech Perception; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome