Biomedical subjects

Annelle Hodges

Publications and source records attributed to Annelle Hodges.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Comparison of continuous interleaved sampling and simultaneous analog stimulation speech processing strategies in newly implanted adults with a Clarion 1.2 cochlear implant.

OBJECTIVE: This study consisted of a within-subjects comparison of speech recognition and patient preference when subjects used two different cochlear implant speech processing strategies with a Clarion 1.2 (enhanced bipolar) device: Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS), and Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS). These two strategies used two different electrode configurations: the SAS strategy used bipolar stimulation, whereas the CIS strategy used monopolar stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: This was a multicenter study that used a within-subjects balanced crossover design. Experience with the two strategies was replicated in each subject using an ABAB design. Order of strategy use was balanced across all subjects. SETTING: The study was carried out at several cochlear implant centers affiliated with tertiary medical centers. PATIENTS: Subjects consisted of 25 postlingually deafened adults who received a Clarion cochlear implant. INTERVENTIONS: Total involvement by each subject was 14 weeks. Speech perception testing and sound quality assessments were performed after use with each strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures include speech perception data and patient responses to questionnaires regarding speech and sound quality. RESULTS: Analyses revealed that performance did not differ significantly by the strategy encountered first as relative to the strategy encountered second and that the order in which a strategy was used did not appear to affect subjects' eventual preference for a particular strategy. Although speech recognition scores tended to be higher for CIS for most of the test measures at most of the test intervals, the analysis of variance to evaluate differences in strategy did not reveal a significant effect of strategy. Further analysis of scores obtained at the replication interval, however, revealed that scores obtained with CIS were significantly higher than scores obtained with SAS on the Hearing in Noise Test sentences in quiet and noise. In addition, significantly more patients indicated a final preference for the CIS strategy than for the SAS strategy. Importantly, both the analysis evaluating order and the analysis evaluating strategy revealed significant effects of evaluation period, indicating that time/experience with the implant had a significant effect on scores for each strategy, regardless of the order in which it was used (first or second). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that important learning occurs during the first several weeks of cochlear implant use, making it difficult to adequately compare performance with different speech processing strategies. However, the finding that patients often prefer the strategy they understand speech the best with supports the clinical practice of letting adult patients select their preferred strategy without formally evaluating speech perception with each available strategy.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Vestibular effects of cochlear implantation.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implantation (CI) carries with it the potential risk for vestibular system insult or stimulation with resultant dysfunction. As candidate profiles continue to evolve and with the recent development of bilateral CI, understanding the significance of this risk takes on an increasing importance. STUDY DESIGN: Between 1997 to 2001, a prospective observational study was carried out in a tertiary care medical center to assess the effects of unilateral CI on the vestibular system. METHODS: Assessment was performed using the dizziness handicap inventory (DHI), vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) testing using both alternate bithermal caloric irrigations (ENG) and rotational chair-generated sinusoidal harmonic accelerations (SHA), and computerized dynamic platform posturography (CDP) at preoperative, 1-month, 4-month, 1-year and 2-year postimplantation visits. CI was carried out without respect to the preoperative vestibular function test results. RESULTS: Specifically, 86 patients were entered into the study after informed consent. For the group as a whole, pair wise comparisons revealed few significant differences between preoperative and postoperative values for VOR testing (ENG and SHA) at any of the follow-up intervals. Likewise, DHI testing was also unchanged except for significant reductions (improvements) in the emotional subcategory scores at both the 4-month and 1-year intervals. CDP results demonstrated substantial improvements in postural sway in the vestibular conditions (5 and 6) as well as composite scores with the device "off" and "on" at the 1-month, 4-month, 1-year, and 2-year intervals. Device activation appeared to improve postural stability in some conditions. Excluding those patients with preoperative areflexic or hyporeflexic responses in the implanted ear (total [warm + cool] caloric response or=21 deg/s maximum slow phase velocity) in total caloric response were observed for 8 (29%) patients at the 4-month interval. These persisted throughout the study period. These changes were accompanied by significant low frequency phase changes on SHA testing confirming a VOR insult. Of interest, no significant changes were detected in the DHI or CDP, and there were no effects of age, sex, device manufacturer, or etiology of hearing loss (HL) for these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral CI rarely results in significant adverse effects on the vestibular system as measured by the DHI, ENG, SHA, and CDP. On the contrary, patients that underwent CI experienced significant improvements in the objective measures of postural stability as measured by CDP. Device activation in music appeared to have an additional positive effect on postural stability during CDP testing. Although VOR testing demonstrated some decreases in response, patients did not suffer from disabling vestibular effects following CI. The mechanism underlying these findings remains speculative. These findings should be considered in counseling patients about CI.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Cochlear implantation concurrent with translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Cochlear implants provide successful auditory rehabilitation for patients with profound sensorineural hearing loss who do not derive at least marginal benefit from conventional hearing aids. Patients with neurofibromatosis type 2 can present with bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss caused by bilateral vestibular schwannomas. Auditory rehabilitation in these patients can be challenging. We present the case of one such patient who underwent a concurrent translabyrinthine vestibular schwannoma resection and cochlear implantation in the same ear. STUDY DESIGN: A case report and review of the literature. METHODS: Review the patient's medical record and MEDLINE literature search. RESULTS: The patient presented with a relatively small tumor that was situated in the fundus of the internal auditory canal with intralabyrinthine extension. Postoperative performance with implant stimulation was in the higher range of that for other cochlear implant patients. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case reported of simultaneous cochlear implant and translabyrinthine acoustic neuroma resection in the same ear of a patient with neurofibromatosis type 2.

Auditory Threshold↗