Speech perception performance for 100 post-lingually deaf adults fitted with Neurelec cochlear implants: Comparison between Digisonic<sup>®</sup>Convex and Digisonic<sup>®</sup>SP devices after a 1-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONCLUSION: Patients implanted with the Digisonic® SP device showed better identification scores than those implanted with the Convex device, with skills continuing to improve over a longer time period. Technological improvements were beneficial in terms of speech perception in quiet. OBJECTIVE: To compare speech perception skills for post-lingually deaf patients implanted with a previous Neurelec device, the Digisonic® Convex, with those implanted with a more recent one, the Digisonic® SP, which provides more electrodes and a faster stimulation rate. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 100 implanted patients, 45 with the Digisonic® Convex implant and 55 with the Digisonic® SP. Speech perception (dissyllabic words and sentences, in open set) was evaluated until 1 year after implantation. RESULTS: Patients fitted with the Digisonic® SP implant showed significantly better scores after 3, 6, and 12 months (mean scores: 53%, 62%, and 68% for words; 58%, 69%, and 75% for sentences) than those fitted with the Convex implant (34%, 42%, and 43% for words; 38%, 59%, and 51% for sentences). The improvement in speech perception after implantation for SP patients continued throughout the 12 months for words and 6 months for sentences, versus 6 months for words and 3 months for sentences for Convex patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".