title: A comparison of postcochlear implantation speech scores in an adult population.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The vast majority of cochlear implant recipients realize significant improvement in speech perception. However, there continue to be a small group that does not realize such a benefit. In an effort to identify possible predictors for this, we have compared pre- and postimplant audiologic data using Hearing In Noise Test (HINT), City University of New York (CUNY), or Central Institute for the Deaf (CID) scores for 445 consecutive English-speaking adult patients followed for a minimum of 1 year postimplantation in two distinct groups, poor versus excellent performers.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective.
  
  
  METHODS
  Poor performers were those who realized a worsening, no improvement, or an improvement of less than 10%. This group numbered 58 (13%). High performers consisted of a cadre of 194 (44%) patients who scored between 91 and 100% postimplantation. Demographic data relating to onset of deafness, education exposure, etiology, etc., were evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of the poor performers, 33 (57%) were pre-/perilingually deafened. Of these, 79% had not received any auditory/oral training in childhood. On the other hand, a total of 109 implant recipients were individuals who were pre-/perilingually deafened. Of these, 24 were in the excellent performer category. All were identified early and were recipients of a strong auditory/oral education. Of the high performers, 170 (88%) were deafened late. Other findings such as preoperative electronystagmography with caloric testing, hearing aid use, device type, and high-resolution computed tomography scan of the temporal bone will be discussed for both groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  A high preimplant speech score, auditory verbal therapy, and postlingual deafness statistically correlate with higher postimplant speech scores 1 year after cochlear implantation. Device type, caloric response and hearing aid use preimplantation, age at surgery, and sex do not statistically correlate with either poor or excellent speech discrimination scores postcochlear implantation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Bodmer
authors.forename: David B
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Shipp
authors.forename: Jodi M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Ostroff
authors.forename: Amy H C
authors.initials: AH
authors.lastname: Ng
authors.forename: Suzanne
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Stewart
authors.forename: Joseph M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Julian M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Nedzelski
mesh_terms: D019929:Cochlear Implantation; D003638:Deafness / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D004585:Electrooculography; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011184:Postoperative Period; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D016896:Treatment Outcome