Subjects in the control group will have had listening experience with a bone-conduction device, which is an approved treatment for SSD.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in variable error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in constant error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in adjusted constant error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires in order to evaluate the perceived benefits of cochlear implantation. For the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is average response across questions for the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires to order to evaluate the perceived benefits of cochlear implantation. For the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, participants rank their perceived tinnitus severity on a scale of 0-100, with lower values indicate less tinnitus severity. Responses across all questions are summed to derive the total score.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 10-talker masker 90 degrees towards the poorer hearing ear (implanted ear). Scored as the percent correctly repeated.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) and the 10-talker masker from the front speaker. Scored as the percent correctly repeated.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) and the 4-talker masker from the front speaker. Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. Lower numbers indicate better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 4-talker masker 90 degrees towards the normal/better hearing ear. Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. A lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 4-talker masker 90 degrees towards the poorer hearing ear (implanted ear). Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. Lower values indicate better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus with a bone-conduction device. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in root-mean-squared (RMS) error. A lower value indicates better performance.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is the average response across questions for the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, participants rank their perceived tinnitus severity on a scale of 0-100, with lower values indicate less tinnitus severity. Responses across all questions are summed to derive the total score.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing questionnaire, participants rank their perceived abilities on a scale of 0-10. Higher values indicate more perceived abilities. Results are reported as the total score at each interval, which is the average of the responses from all questions for the questionnaire.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

The speech perception (cochlear implant recipients with UHL/SSD) to a control group of implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option). Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation. Sentence recognition was assessed in a 10-talker masker at 0 dB SNR with the target speech presented from the front and the masker (1) presented from the front (SoNo), (2) presented towards the implanted ear (SoNbc), and (3) presented towards the acoustic ear (SoNnh). Performance was scored as the percent of words correctly repeated, with higher values indicating better performance. The task was completed with the participants listening with their bone-conduction device on versus off.

The speech perception outcomes in the study population (cochlear implant recipients with UHL/SSD) to a control group of implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option). Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation. Sentence recognition was assessed in a 4-talker masker with the target speech presented from the front and the masker (1) presented from the front, (2) presented towards the implanted ear, and (3) presented towards the acoustic ear. Performance was scored as the dB SNR when the participant understood 50% correct, with lower values indicating better performance. Participants completed the task with the device on and off.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the bone-conduction device on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in root-mean-squared (RMS) error. A lower value indicates better performance. Subjects in the control group were implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option) with at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device. Participants completed the task with their device on and off.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing questionnaire, participants rank their perceived abilities on a scale of 0-10. Higher values indicate more perceived abilities. Results are reported as the average responses across questions for each subscale (Speech Hearing, Spatial Hearing, and Qualities of Hearing). Results are also reported as the total score at each interval, which is the average of the responses from all questions for the questionnaire.

Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. Results are reported as the average responses for each of the four subscales: ease of communication, reverberation, effectiveness in background noise, and reverberation. The global score is the average response across questions for the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales.

Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation.

Cochlear implantation of the poorer hearing ear

Cochlear Implant: cochlear implantation used as a treatment for single-sided deafness/unilateral hearing loss and/or asymmetric hearing loss

Total of all reporting groups

Race and Ethnicity were not collected from any participant.

Cochlear implantation of the poorer hearing ear

Cochlear Implant: cochlear implantation used a treatment for unilateral hearing loss/single-sided deafness and/or asymmetric hearing loss

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in root-mean-squared (RMS) error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires in order to evaluate the perceived benefits of cochlear implantation. For the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing questionnaire, participants rank their perceived abilities on a scale of 0-10. Higher values indicate more perceived abilities. Results are reported as the total score at each interval, which is the average of the responses from all questions for the questionnaire.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 10-talker masker 90 degrees towards the normal/better hearing ear. Scored as the percent correctly repeated.

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in variable error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in constant error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in adjusted constant error. A lower value indicates better performance. Results are compared during the first year of cochlear implant use.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires in order to evaluate the perceived benefits of cochlear implantation. For the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is average response across questions for the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires to order to evaluate the perceived benefits of cochlear implantation. For the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, participants rank their perceived tinnitus severity on a scale of 0-100, with lower values indicate less tinnitus severity. Responses across all questions are summed to derive the total score.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 10-talker masker 90 degrees towards the poorer hearing ear (implanted ear). Scored as the percent correctly repeated.

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) and the 10-talker masker from the front speaker. Scored as the percent correctly repeated.

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) and the 4-talker masker from the front speaker. Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. Lower numbers indicate better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 4-talker masker 90 degrees towards the normal/better hearing ear. Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. A lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: sentence recognition in noise with the target (speaker) from the front and the 4-talker masker 90 degrees towards the poorer hearing ear (implanted ear). Scored as dB signal-to-noise ratio that the listener gets 50% speech understanding. Lower values indicate better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

Three participants with asymmetric hearing loss did not complete the 9-month interval. One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Results on recorded speech perception materials: aided word recognition. Recorded 50-word CNC words were evaluated preoperatively with a conventional hearing aid. Performance was compared to the CI alone at the 12 month interval. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis to control for potential floor or ceiling effects (e.g., scores <20%).

One asymmetric hearing loss participant withdrew prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the cochlear implant on versus with a bone-conduction device. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in root-mean-squared (RMS) error. A lower value indicates better performance.

Three participants in the asymmetric group did not complete testing at the 9-month interval. One participant did not complete testing with the CI on at the 12-month interval. Three participants did not complete testing in the with the bone conduction device at the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, participants rank their perceived difficulty on a scale of 1-99, with lower values indicate less perceived difficulty. The global score is the average response across questions for the ease of communication, reverberation, and effectiveness in background noise subscales.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, participants rank their perceived tinnitus severity on a scale of 0-100, with lower values indicate less tinnitus severity. Responses across all questions are summed to derive the total score.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Subjects completed subjective questionnaires. For the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing questionnaire, participants rank their perceived abilities on a scale of 0-10. Higher values indicate more perceived abilities. Results are reported as the total score at each interval, which is the average of the responses from all questions for the questionnaire.

Three participants in the asymmetric hearing loss group did not complete the 9 month interval. One participant in the asymmetric hearing loss group withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Seven participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio at the preoperative interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Seven participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio at the preoperative interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Recorded AzBio sentences in a 10-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Percent correct data were converted to rationalized arcsine units (RAU) prior to data analysis.

One participant with asymmetric hearing loss withdrew from the study prior to the 12-month interval. Seven participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio at the preoperative interval. Four participants were tested at a different signal-to-noise ratio.

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

One asymmetric hearing loss participant withdrew prior to the 12-month interval.

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

One asymmetric hearing loss participant withdrew prior to the 12-month interval.

Recorded BKB sentences in a 4-talker masker were evaluated in 2 conditions: 1) bone-conduction device at the preoperative interval and 2) with the cochlear implant (CI) at the 12-month post-activation period. A paired samples t-test compared the performance with the two devices. Results are reported in dB SNR, where a lower value indicates better performance (range -7.5 to 23.5 dB SNR).

One asymmetric hearing loss participant withdrew prior to the 12-month interval.

The speech perception (cochlear implant recipients with UHL/SSD) to a control group of implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option). Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation. Sentence recognition was assessed in a 10-talker masker at 0 dB SNR with the target speech presented from the front and the masker (1) presented from the front (SoNo), (2) presented towards the implanted ear (SoNbc), and (3) presented towards the acoustic ear (SoNnh). Performance was scored as the percent of words correctly repeated, with higher values indicating better performance. The task was completed with the participants listening with their bone-conduction device on versus off.

Performance on measures of speech perception

The speech perception outcomes in the study population (cochlear implant recipients with UHL/SSD) to a control group of implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option). Participants in the control group had at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device prior to study participation. Sentence recognition was assessed in a 4-talker masker with the target speech presented from the front and the masker (1) presented from the front, (2) presented towards the implanted ear, and (3) presented towards the acoustic ear. Performance was scored as the dB SNR when the participant understood 50% correct, with lower values indicating better performance. Participants completed the task with the device on and off.

Subjects were asked to identify the noise source from an 11-speaker array with the bone-conduction device on versus off. The intensity level of the stimulus was randomly varied (10 dB around 70 dB SPL) to limit the listener relying on level effects. Responses at each intensity level (i.e., 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL) for a given sound source (speaker) were combined (averaged). Results are reported in root-mean-squared (RMS) error. A lower value indicates better performance. Subjects in the control group were implantable bone-conduction device recipients (alternative treatment option) with at least 12 months of listening experience with their implanted bone-conduction device. Participants completed the task with their device on and off.