Are Psychoacoustic Tests Enough? Exploring Their Relationship With Self-Reported Hearing Outcomes in CI Users

Abstract

Objective: Cochlear implant (CI) users are typically assessed using behavioral psychoacoustic measures. However, these evaluations may not adequately reflect real-world listening experiences. This study aimed to examine the relationship between psychoacoustic performance and self-reported hearing abilities in daily life among CI users.

Material and Methods: Twenty-four adult unilateral CI recipients (mean age=34.98±8.85 years; range: 19–50 years) were included in the study. The study utilized behavioral measures [Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT), and Temporal Modulation Transfer Function (TMTF), Turkish Matrix Test (Matrix)], self-reported questionnaires [Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and the hearing handicap inventory for adults (HHI-A). The TMTF evaluation was performed at a modulation frequency of 10 Hz, and the Matrix test was applied in adaptive mode.

Results: No significant overall correlation was observed between TMTF, SMRT, Matrix, self-reported assessments (p>.05). Although no significant differences (p>.05) were observed, weak positive correlations were found between the Matrix test and the HHI-A Emotional (r=.318) and Social (r=.385) subdomains, as well as between the TMTF and the SSQ Hearing Qualities subdomain (r=.295). SMRT and Matrix scores moderate correlated significantly (r=–.492, p=.015); HHI-A Emotional scores were moderate correlated with SSQ Hearing Qualities (r=–.420, p=.041); HHI-A Social scores moderate correlated with SSQ Hearing Qualities (r=–.447, p=.029).

Conclusions: Although behavioral assessments hold a primary place within test protocols, self-report questionnaires provide important complementary information by reflecting the impact of hearing loss on daily life from the individual’s perspectives. Therefore, incorporating self-report scales into test batteries designed for the evaluation of cochlear implant users offers substantial value, as it allows auditory performance to be approached comprehensively from both behavior-based measurements and subjective dimensions.

Keywords

• Cochlear implant
• self reported assesment
• matrix
• SSQ
• HHI

Project Number

Not Applicable

References

1. Callen JL, Westbrook JI, Georgiou A, Li J. Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2012;27(10):1334-48. google scholar
2. Prentiss S, Snapp H, Zwolan T. Audiology practices in the preoperative evaluation and management of adult cochlear implant candidates. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020;146(2):136-42. google scholar
3. Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004;43(2):85-99. google scholar
4. Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear 1991;12(5):355-7. google scholar
5. Samuel AG. Speech perception. Annu. Rev Psychol 2011;62(1):49-72. google scholar
6. Ali F. The role of sound offsets in auditory temporal processing and perception Doctoral Thesis, University College London, 2021. google scholar
7. Litvak LM, Spahr AJ, Saoji AA, Fridman GY. Relationship between perception of spectral ripple and speech recognition in cochlear implant and vocoder listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;122(2):982-91. google scholar
8. Moore BC. An introduction to the psychology of hearing. 6th ed: Brill; 2012. google scholar

9. Saoji AA, Litvak L, Spahr AJ, Eddins DA. Spectral modulation detection and vowel and consonant identifications in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126(3):955-8. google scholar
10. Henry BA, Turner CW, Behrens A. Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: Normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2005;118(2):1111-21. google scholar
11. Won JH, Drennan WR, Nie K, Jameyson EM, Rubinstein JT. Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;130(1):376-88. google scholar
12. Dietz A, Heinrich A, Törmäkangas T, Iso-Mustajärvi M, Miettinen P, Willberg T, et al. The effectiveness of unilateral cochlear implantation on performance-based and patient-reported outcome measures in finnish recipients. Front Neurosci 2022;16:786939. google scholar
13. Zokoll MA, Fidan D, Türkyılmaz D, Hochmuth S, Ergenç İ, Sennaroğlu G, et al. Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test. Int J Audiol 2015;54(Suppl 2):51-61. google scholar
14. Aronoff JM, Landsberger DM. The development of a modified spectral ripple test. J. Acoust Soc Am 2013;134(2):EL217-EL22. google scholar
15. Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology 1985;24(2):117-34. google scholar
16. Kılıç N, Kamışlı GİŞ, Gündüz B, Bayramoğlu İ, Kemaloğlu YK. Turkish validity and reliability study of the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2021;59(3):172. google scholar
17. Aksoy S, Aslan F, Köse A. İşitme Engeli Ölçeği–Erişkin: uzun ve tarama formlarının Türkçe sürümünün geçerliğinin ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi. KBB-Forum 2020;19(2):17-26. google scholar
18. Güngen C, Ertan T, Eker E, Yaşar R, Engin F. Standardize mini mental test’in Türk toplumunda hafif demans tanısında geçerlik ve güvenilirliği. Türk Psikiyatri Derg 2002;13(4):273-81. google scholar
19. Hall DA, Johnsrude IS, Haggard MP, Palmer AR, Akeroyd MA, Summerfield AQ. Spectral and temporal processing in human auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex 2002;12(2):140-9. google scholar
20. Hall III JW, Grose JH. Development of temporal resolution in children as measured by the temporal modulation transfer function. J Acoust Soc Am 1994;96(1):150-4. google scholar
21. Dingemanse G, Goedegebure A. The relation of hearing-specific patient-reported outcome measures with speech perception measures and acceptable noise levels in cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2020;59(6):416-26. google scholar
22. Capretta NR, Moberly AC. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users? Laryngoscope 2016;126(3):699-706. google scholar
23. Noble W, Gatehouse S. Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing scale (SSQ) Efectos de la adaptación uni o bilateral de auxiliares auditivos en las habilidades medidas la escala de cualidades auditiva, espacial y del lenguaje (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2006;45(3):172-81. google scholar
24. Noble W, Tyler R, Dunn C, Bhullar N. Hearing handicap ratings among different profiles of adult cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2008;29(1):112-20. google scholar
25. Wallhäusser-Franke E, Balkenhol T, Hetjens S, Rotter N, Servais JJ. Patient benefit following bimodal CI-provision: self-reported abilities vs. hearing status. Front Neurol 2018;9:753. google scholar
26. Prince P, Chen J, Le T, Lin V, Dimitrijevic A. Greater working memory in cochlear implant users is related to higher subjective quality of life. Front Audiol Otol 2024;2:1421767. google scholar
27. Arnal LH, Giraud A-L. Cortical oscillations and sensory predictions. Trends Cogn Sci 2012;16(7):390-8. google scholar
28. Arnal LH, Poeppel D, Giraud A-l. Temporal coding in the auditory cortex. Handb Clin Neurol 2015;129:85-98. google scholar
29. Ertürk P, Aslan F, Türkyılmaz MD. Listening to speech-in-noise with hearing aids: Do the self-reported outcomes reflect the behavioral speech perception task performance? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024;281(3):1139-47. google scholar
30. Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J, von Wedel H, Walger M. Detecting components of hearing aid fitting using a self-assessment-inventory. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2005;262(7):580-6. google scholar
31. Ramakers GG, Smulders YE, Van Zon A, Van Zanten GA, Grolman W, Stegeman I. Correlation between subjective and objective hearing tests after unilateral and bilateral cochlear implantation. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord 2017;17:1-8. google scholar
32. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 2003;43(5):661-8. google scholar
33. Lawler M, Yu J, Aronoff JM. Comparison of the spectral-temporally modulated ripple test with the Arizona Biomedical Institute Sentence Test in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2017;38(6):760-6. google scholar
34. Zhou N, Dixon S, Zhu Z, Dong L, Weiner M. Spectrotemporal modulation sensitivity in cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners: Is the performance driven by temporal or spectral modulation sensitivity? Trends Hear 2020;24:2331216520948385. google scholar
35. Horn DL, Dudley DJ, Dedhia K, Nie K, Drennan WR, Won JH, et al. Effects of age and hearing mechanism on spectral resolution in normal hearing and cochlear-implanted listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2017;141(1):613-23. google scholar
36. Edwards E, Chang EF. Syllabic (∼ 2–5 Hz) and fluctuation (∼ 1–10 Hz) ranges in speech and auditory processing. Hear Res 2013;305:113-34. google scholar