Upgrade to Nucleus^® 6 in Previous Generation Cochlear™ Sound Processor Recipients

Abstract

Background:

The Nucleus^® 6 sound processor is now compatible with the Nucleus^® 22 (CI22M)—Cochlear’s first generation cochlear implant. The Nucleus 6 offers three new signal processing algorithms that purportedly facilitate improved hearing in background noise.

Purpose:

These studies were designed to evaluate listening performance and user satisfaction with the Nucleus 6 sound processor.

Research Design:

The research design was a prospective, single-participant, repeated measures design

Study Sample:

A group of 80 participants implanted with various Nucleus internal implant devices (CI22M, CI24M, Freedom^® CI24RE, CI422, and CI512) were recruited from a total of six North American sites.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Participants had their external sound processor upgraded to the Nucleus 6 sound processor. Final speech perception testing in noise and subjective questionnaires were completed after four or 12 weeks of take-home use with the Nucleus 6.

Results:

Speech perception testing in noise showed significant improvement and participants reported increased satisfaction with the Nucleus 6.

Conclusion:

These studies demonstrated the benefit of the new algorithms in the Nucleus 6 over previous generations of sound processors.

Key Words

cochlear implant - Nucleus 5 - Nucleus 6 - N22 - sound processor - upgrade

These clinical studies were sponsored by Cochlear Americas, the manufacturer of the Nucleus implants and the sound processors referenced in this document.

• REFERENCES

• Beiter A, Nel E. 2015; The history of Cochlear Nucleus sound processor upgrades: 30 years and counting. J Otol 10 (03) 108-114
• Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. 1979; The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 13 (03) 108-112
• Berger K, Bagus H, Michels H, Roth J, Voss B, Klenzner T. 2006; Multizentrumstudie über ESPrit 3G für Nucleus 22. Hals-Nasen Ohrenheilkd 54: 353-360
• Boothroyd A, Hnath-Chisolm T, Hanin L, Kishon-Rabin L. 1988; Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear Hear 9 (06) 306-312
• Chung K, McKibben N, Mongeau L. 2010; Wind noise in hearing aids with directional and omnidirectional microphones: polar characteristics of custom-made hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 127 (04) 2529-2542
• Clark GM. 2015; The multi-channel cochlear implant: multi-disciplinary development of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and the resulting clinical benefit. Hear Res 322: 4-13
• De Ceulaer G, Swinnen F, Pascoal D, Philips B, Killian M, James C, Govaerts PJ, Dhooge I. 2015; Conversion of adult Nucleus^® 5 cochlear implant users to the Nucleus^® 6 system. Cochlear Implants Int 16 (04) 222-232
• Dodd MC, Nikolopoulos TP, Totten C, Cope Y, O’Donoghue GM. 2005; Cochlear implants: 100 pediatric case conversions from the body worn to the nucleus esprit 22 ear level speech processor. Otol Neurotol 26 (04) 635-638
• Duke MM, Wolfe J, Schafer E. 2016; Recognition of speech from the television with use of a wireless technology designed for cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (05) 388-394
• Gatehouse S, Noble W. 2004; The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 43 (02) 85-99
• Gifford RH, Shallop JK, Peterson AM. 2008; Speech recognition materials and ceiling effects: considerations for cochlear implant programs. Audiol Neurootol 13 (03) 193-205
• Gilden J, Lewis K, Grant G, Crosson J. 2015; Improved hearing in noise using new signal processing algorithms with the Cochlear Nucleus 6 sound processor. J Otol 10: 51-56
• Hirshorn MS, Mecklenburg DJ, Brimacombe JA. 1986; Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant: preliminary observations. J Rehabil Res Dev 23 (02) 27-33
• Krueger B, Joseph G, Rost U, Strauss-Schier A, Lenarz T, Buechner A. 2008; Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol Neurotol 29 (04) 509-512
• Mauger SJ, Arora K, Dawson PW. 2012; b Cochlear implant optimized noise reduction. J Neural Eng 9 (06) 065007
• Mauger SJ, Dawson PW, Hersbach AA. 2012; a Perceptually optimized gain function for cochlear implant signal-to-noise ratio based noise reduction. J Acoust Soc Am 131 (01) 327-336
• Mauger SJ, Warren CD, Knight MR, Goorevich M, Nel E. 2014; Clinical evaluation of the Nucleus 6 cochlear implant system: performance improvements with SmartSound iQ. Int J Audiol 53 (08) 564-576
• Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
• Nucleus ESPrit 3G Whisper Setting N95I75FISSI JUN 02. Cochlear Limited (2002).
• Nucleus Freedom Hearing Performance with Nucleus 22 Recipients, N32746F ISSI DEC07 Cochlear Limited (2007).
• Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ. 2006; The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 10 (04) 175-200
• Peterson GE, Lehiste I. 1962; Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27 (01) 62-70
• Plasmans A, Rushbrooke E, Moran M, Spence C, Theuwis L, Zarowski A, Offeciers E, Atkinson B, McGovern J, Dornan D, Leigh J, Kaicer A, Hollow R, Martelli L, Looi V, Nel E, Del Dot J, Cowan R, Mauger SJ. 2016; A multicentre clinical evaluation of paediatric cochlear implant users upgrading to the Nucleus^® 6 system. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 83: 193-199
• Runge CL, Henion K, Tarima S, Beiter A, Zwolan TA. 2016; Clinical outcomes of the Cochlear Nucleus 5 cochlear implant system and SmartSound 2 signal processing. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (06) 425-440
• Silverman SR, Hirsh IJ. 1955; Problems related to the use of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 64 (04) 1234-1244
• Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Dowell RC, Seligman PM, Brimacombe JA, Beiter AL. 1991; Performance of postlinguistically deaf adults with the Wearable Speech Processor (WSP III) and Mini Speech Processor (MSP) of the Nucleus multi-electrode cochlear implant. Ear Hear 12 (01) 3-22
• Skinner MW, Clark GM, Whitford LA, Seligman PM, Staller SJ, Shipp DB, Shallop JK, Everingham C, Menapace CM, Arndt PL, Antogenelli T, Brimacombe MA, Sipke P, Daniels P, George CR, McDermott HJ, Beiter AL. 1994; Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol 15 (02) (Suppl 2) 15-27
• Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM, Van Wie S, Gifford RH, Loizou PC, Loiselle LM, Oakes T, Cook S. 2012; Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 33 (01) 112-117
• Spriet A, Van Deun L, Eftaxiadis K, Laneau J, Moonen M, van Dijk B, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. 2007; Speech understanding in background noise with the two-microphone adaptive beamformer BEAM in the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear Implant System. Ear Hear 28 (01) 62-72
• Thornton AR, Raffin MJ. 1978; Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 21 (03) 507-518
• White L. (2013) Evaluation of Nucleus 6: clinical validation results. Data on file at Cochlear Americas.
• Wolfe J, Morais Duke M, Schafer E, Cire G, Menapace C, O’Neill L. 2016; Evaluation of a wireless audio streaming accessory to improve mobile telephone performance of cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 55 (02) 75-82
• Wolfe J, Neumann S, Marsh M, Schafer E, Lianos L, Gilden J, O’Neill L, Arkis P, Menapace C, Nel E, Jones M. 2015; Benefits of adaptive signal processing in a commercially available cochlear implant sound processor. Otol Neurotol 36 (07) 1181-1190