Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Palavas-les-Flots, France

Lazard D.S.,Bionics Institute | Vincent C.,Service dOtologie et dOtoneurologie | Venail F.,Montpellier University Hospital Center | van de Heyning P.,University of Antwerp | And 24 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2012

Objective: To test the influence of multiple factors on cochlear implant (CI) speech performance in quiet and in noise for postlinguistically deaf adults, and to design a model of predicted auditory performance with a CI as a function of the significant factors. Study Design: Retrospective multi-centre study. Methods: Data from 2251 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centres were collected. Speech scores in quiet and in noise were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centres. The influence of 15 pre-, per- and postoperative factors, such as the duration of moderate hearing loss (mHL), the surgical approach (cochleostomy or round window approach), the angle of insertion, the percentage of active electrodes, and the brand of device were tested. The usual factors, duration of profound HL (pHL), age, etiology, duration of CI experience, that are already known to have an influence, were included in the statistical analyses. Results: The significant factors were: the pure tone average threshold of the better ear, the brand of device, the percentage of active electrodes, the use of hearing aids (HAs) during the period of pHL, and the duration of mHL. Conclusions: A new model was designed showing a decrease of performance that started during the period of mHL, and became faster during the period of pHL. The use of bilateral HAs slowed down the related central reorganization that is the likely cause of the decreased performance. © 2012 Lazard et al. Source


Blamey P.J.,Bionics Institute | Blamey P.J.,University of Melbourne | Maat B.,University of Groningen | Baskent D.,University of Groningen | And 23 more authors.
Ear and Hearing | Year: 2015

To compare speech perception outcomes between bilateral implantation (cochlear implants [CIs]) and bimodal rehabilitation (one CI on one side plus one hearing aid [HA] on the other side) and to explore the clinical factors that may cause asymmetric performances in speech intelligibility between the two ears in case of bilateral implantation. Design: Retrospective data from 2247 patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected. Intelligibility scores, measured in quiet and in noise, were converted into percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. The influence of the listening mode among three independent groups, one CI alone (n = 1572), bimodal listening (CI/HA, n = 589), and bilateral CIs (CI/CI, n = 86), was compared in an analysis taking into account the influence of other factors such as duration of profound hearing loss, age, etiology, and duration of CI experience. No within-subject comparison (i.e., monitoring outcome modifications in CI/HA subjects becoming CI/CI) was possible from this dataset. Further analyses were conducted on the CI/CI subgroup to investigate a number of factors, such as implantation side, duration of hearing loss, amount of residual hearing, and use of HAs that may explain asymmetric performances of this subgroup. Results: Intelligibility ranked scores in quiet and in noise were significantly greater with both CI/CI and CI/HA than with a CI-alone group, and improvement with CI/CI (+11% and +16% in quiet and in noise, respectively) was significantly better than with CI/HA (+6% and +9% in quiet and in noise, respectively). From the CI/HA group, only subjects with ranked preoperative aided speech scores >60% performed as well as CI/CI participants. Furthermore, CI/CI subjects displayed significantly lower preoperative aided speech scores on average compared with that displayed by CI/HA subjects. Routine clinical data available from the present database did not explain the asymmetrical results of bilateral implantation. Conclusions: This retrospective study, based on basic speech audiometry (no lateralization cues), indicates that, on average, a second CI is likely to provide slightly better postoperative speech outcome than an additional HA for people with very low preoperative performance. These results may be taken into consideration to refine surgical indications for CIs © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Source


Lessard N.,Hopital du Sacre Coeur de Montreal | Lessard N.,University of Montreal | McNally-Gagnon A.,University of Montreal | Dubuc M.-J.,Center Monteregien Of Readaptation | And 6 more authors.
Cognitive Neuropsychiatry | Year: 2015

Introduction. Individuals with schizophrenia and affective disorders show relatively intact implicit memory as compared to declarative memory. Implicit memory is usually assessed with skill learning and priming tasks. Whereas priming is thought to involve storage changes in the posterior neocortex, skill learning is thought to rely more on the corticostriatal pathway. Since frontostriatal and frontotemporal dysfunctions are, respectively, found in schizophrenia and affective disorders, we hypothesised that individuals with schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis would exhibit disturbances in skill learning, but not priming.Methods. Thirty-five patients (11 first-episode psychosis; 11 schizophrenia; 13 affective disorders) and 10 controls completed a procedural learning and priming task. Participants had to identify fragmented images throughout five training sessions. The improvement of the threshold at which the images could be identified between the first and last session was used as an index of procedural learning. In a final session, the identification thresholds for old and new images were compared to assess the priming effect.Results. Whereas individuals with schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis showed impaired skill learning, the priming effect was similar in all groups.Conclusion. Even though some aspects of learning and memory are affected in schizophrenia, our results suggest that the posterior cortical pathway remains efficient at modulating the priming effect. This intact ability could be used to guide the elaboration of new rehabilitation programmes. © 2015 Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal. Source


Mosnier I.,Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris | Mosnier I.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research | Bebear J.-P.,Service Oto rhino laryngologie | Marx M.,Service Oto rhinolaryngologie | And 16 more authors.
JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery | Year: 2015

IMPORTANCE: The association between hearing impairment and cognitive decline has been established; however, the effect of cochlear implantation on cognition in profoundly deaf elderly patients is not known. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between cognitive function and hearing restoration with a cochlear implant in elderly patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective longitudinal study performed in 10 tertiary referral centers between September 1, 2006, and June 30, 2009. The participants included 94 patients aged 65 to 85 years with profound, postlingual hearing loss who were evaluated before, 6 months after, and 12 months after cochlear implantation. INTERVENTIONS: Cochlear implantation and aural rehabilitation program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Speech perception was measured using disyllabic word recognition tests in quiet and in noise settings. Cognitive function was assessed using a battery of 6 tests evaluating attention, memory, orientation, executive function, mental flexibility, and fluency (Mini-Mental State Examination, 5-word test, clock-drawing test, verbal fluency test, d2 test of attention, and Trail Making test parts A and B). Quality of life and depression were evaluated using the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire and the Geriatric Depression Scale-4. RESULTS: Cochlear implantation led to improvements in speech perception in quiet and in noise (at 6 months: in quiet, 42% score increase [95% CI, 35%-49%; P < .001]; in noise, at signal to noise ratio [SNR] +15 dB, 44% [95% CI, 36%-52%, P < .001], at SNR +10 dB, 37% [95% CI 30%-44%; P < .001], and at SNR +5 dB, 27% [95% CI, 20%-33%; P < .001]), quality of life, and Geriatric Depression Scale-4 scores (76% of patients gave responses indicating no depression at 12 months after implantation vs 59% before implantation; P = .02). Before cochlear implantation, 44% of the patients (40 of 91) had abnormal scores on 2 or 3 of 6 cognition tests. One year after implant, 81% of the subgroup (30 of 37) showed improved global cognitive function (no or 1 abnormal test score). Improved mean scores in all cognitive domains were observed as early as 6 months after cochlear implantation. Cognitive performance remained stable in the remaining 19% of the participants (7 of 37). Among patients with the best cognitive performance before implantation (ie, no or 1 abnormal cognitive test score), 24% (12 of 50) displayed a slight decline in cognitive performance. Multivariate analysis to examine the association between cognitive abilities before implantation and the variability in cochlear implant outcomes demonstrated a significant effect only between long-term memory and speech perception in noise at 12 months (SNR +15 dB, P = .01; SNR +10 dB, P < .001; and SNR +5 dB, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation of hearing communication through cochlear implantation in elderly patients results in improvements in speech perception and cognitive abilities and positively influences their social activity and quality of life. Further research is needed to assess the long-term effect of cochlear implantation on cognitive decline. Copyright 2015 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Source


Blamey P.,Bionics Institute | Blamey P.,University of Melbourne | Artieres F.,Institute Saint Pierre | Artieres F.,Montpellier University Hospital Center | And 29 more authors.
Audiology and Neurotology | Year: 2013

Objective: To update a 15-year-old study of 800 postlinguistically deaf adult patients showing how duration of severe to profound hearing loss, age at cochlear implantation (CI), age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss, etiology and CI experience affected CI outcome. Study Design: Retrospective multicenter study. Methods: Data from 2251 adult patients implanted since 2003 in 15 international centers were collected and speech scores in quiet were converted to percentile ranks to remove differences between centers. Results: The negative effect of long duration of severe to profound hearing loss was less important in the new data than in 1996; the effects of age at CI and age at onset of severe to profound hearing loss were delayed until older ages; etiology had a smaller effect, and the effect of CI experience was greater with a steeper learning curve. Patients with longer durations of severe to profound hearing loss were less likely to improve with CI experience than patients with shorter duration of severe to profound hearing loss. Conclusions: The factors that were relevant in 1996 were still relevant in 2011, although their relative importance had changed. Relaxed patient selection criteria, improved clinical management of hearing loss, modifications of surgical practice, and improved devices may explain the differences. © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel. Source

Discover hidden collaborations