Evolution of Cochlear Implant Arrays Result in Changes in Behavioral and Physiological Responses in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a change in cochlear implant technology and electrode array design affects electrophysiological, behavioral, and functional measures of audition in pediatric cochlear implant users. DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized control study over 6 months postimplantation. SETTING: Tertiary referral pediatric hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 115 children using unilateral cochlear implants were included in this study. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: 1) 38 using the Nucleus 24M straight array device, 2) 20 using the perimodiolar Nucleus 24RCS Contour array, and 3) 57 using the perimodiolar Nucleus 24RE array with advance off stylet insertion. The mean ages at implantation were 4.85 +/- 4 (24M), 3.88 +/- 3.4 (24RCS), and 5.41 +/- 4.36 years (24RE; not significant, p > 0.05). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and the electrically evoked stapedius reflex and behavioral measures of stimulation threshold were evoked by stimulation of basal, mid, and apical electrodes. These measures were completed at regular intervals over 6 to 12 months of implantation. Age-appropriate speech perception skills were also assessed during this period. RESULTS: The 24RE array group had significantly lower ECAP and behavioral thresholds compared with the 24M and 24RCS array groups. The largest reductions of ECAP thresholds in the precurved array group were observed upon apical and basal electrode stimulation. Electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds were significantly higher in the 24RE group as compared with 24M and 24RCS groups. Comparing age-matched groups, open- and closed-set speech perception test scores were significantly higher in the 24RE array group. CONCLUSION: The precurved Freedom 24RE cochlear implant potentially provides a wider range of stimulation levels and better functional results than the straight electrode 24M and the precurved 24RCS devices in profoundly hearing impaired children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".