Current practices and opinions on auditory training in adult cochlear implant recipients

James R Dornhoffer; Christine M Lohse; Terrin N Tamati; Aaron C Moberly; Matthew L Carlson

doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104339

Current practices and opinions on auditory training in adult cochlear implant recipients

Am J Otolaryngol. 2024 Apr 24;45(4):104339. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104339. Online ahead of print.

Authors

James R Dornhoffer¹, Christine M Lohse², Terrin N Tamati³, Aaron C Moberly³, Matthew L Carlson⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1(st) St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
² Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, 200 1(st) St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
³ Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr., Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
⁴ Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Mayo Clinic, 200 1(st) St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic; 200 1(st) St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA. Electronic address: carlson.matthew@mayo.edu.

PMID: 38677146
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2024.104339

Abstract

Objective: To examine current practices and opinions of cochlear implant (CI) providers with respect to post-implantation auditory training.

Methods: A survey was submitted to the American Cochlear Implant Alliance membership that reviewed current practice and opinions with respect to post-implantation auditory training for adult CI recipients.

Main outcome measures: Review of respondent practice, center volume, role on CI team, and current usage and opinions surrounding auditory training, including resources used and schedule of use.

Results: Most (79 %) of the 79 CI providers surveyed reported working at academic centers, 34 % at high-volume centers (>150 CIs/year), and 38 % were surgeons. Nearly all (99 %) respondents recommend auditory training for new adult CI recipients. Just over half (52 %) provide auditory training resources to the patient in the form of a broad list of patient-directed exercises from which a patient could select. A specific training resource, generally a computer-based auditory training program (e.g., AngelSound™), is recommended to patients by 30 % of the respondents. Regarding timing of rehabilitation, median preferred start time was 0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 0-1) post-activation. Sessions were preferably performed for a median of 3 h per week (IQR 2-4) and continued for a median of 12 months (IQR 6-12). Recommendations for auditory training were fairly consistent between surgeon and non-surgeon providers and by center volume. Non-surgeons more often had specific recommendations on training resources, benefits of music, and training condition (e.g., contralateral ear plugged).

Conclusions: Despite a lack of clinical guidelines for adult post-implantation auditory training, a cross-sectional survey of providers' current practices and opinions demonstrates that these services are widely recommended and regarded as valuable. Training is almost universally patient-directed and believed to be most beneficial if started soon after activation. Interestingly, specific recommendations for which training approaches to use are not common, suggesting a gap in provider knowledge of which resources are most efficacious.

Keywords: Auditory training; Aural rehabilitation; Cochlear implant; Common practice; Survey.