Preliminary study to determine an optimal mode for favorable residual hearing at low frequencies: Full electrical stimulation, electric acoustic stimulation, and electrical complement. Issue 4 (30th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jang, Jeong Hun; Kim, Hantai; Choo, Oak‐Sung; Ha, Jungho; Mun, Hyoung Ah; Park, Hun Yi; Choung, Yun‐Hoon
• Is Part Of: Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology. Volume 7:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 1129
• Page End: 1135
• Publication Date: 2022-06-30
• Subjects: cochlear implantation -- electric acoustic stimulation -- sensorineural hearing loss; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Laryngoscopy -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology; Otolaryngology; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1002/lio2.843
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2378-8038

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: In this prospective study, each subject experienced three modes electric acoustic stimulation (EAS), full electrical stimulation (FES), and electrical complement (EC), and the performance of each mode and subject preference were evaluated. Methods: Eight ears (seven patients) with successfully preserved residual hearing after cochlear implantation (CI) were included. EAS, FES, and EC programs were set up on each patient's device, and each mode was used for at least 1 h per day for a month. The Speech Intelligibility test, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, and the Hearing in Noise test (HINT) results in each stimulation mode. Results: The mean monosyllabic word score (EAS: 90.3 ± 4.0; FES: 81.2 ± 16.1) and the mean sentence score (EAS: 98.3 ± 1.7; FES: 95.0 ± 3.0) were significantly higher in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. The mean bisyllabic word score (EAS: 95.6 ± 5.6; EC: 90.1 ± 5.6) was higher in the EAS mode than in the EC mode. In HINT, the signal‐to‐noise ratios under the noise front (EAS: 4.7 ± 2.5; FES: 7.9 ± 4.4) and noise composite conditions (EAS: 4.2 ± 2.7; FES: 6.6 ± 4.0) were significantly smaller in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. After trials of the three modes, five subjects preferred EAS, one preferred EC, and two preferred FES. Conclusion: Among the three stimulation modes, EAS produced slightly better results, and subjects generally preferred EAS (five of seven patients, 71.4%). The use of hearing aids before CI was considered an important factor in mode preference. FES may be preferred when CI was performed at a young age and subjects had little experience with hearing aids. However, adults may prefer EC over EAS if there was little or no hearing‐aid use before CI. Abstract : The use of hearing aids before cochlear implantation (CI) was considered an important factor in mode preference. Full electrical stimulation may be preferred when CI was performed at a young age and subjects had little experience with hearing aids. However, adults may prefer electrical complement over electric acoustic stimulation if there was little or no hearing‐aid use before CI.