Investigating the Electrical Properties of Different Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study characterises and compares electrical properties and current spread across four different makes of cochlear implants with differing electrode designs using a 3D-printed artificial cochlear model. BACKGROUND: Cochlear implants are currently limited by current spread within the cochlea, which causes low spectral resolution of auditory nerve stimulation. Different cochlear implant makes vary in electrode size, shape, number, and configuration. How these differences affect cochlear implant current spread and function is not well known. METHOD: Each cochlear implant was inserted into a linear cochlear model containing recording electrodes along its length. Biphasic monopolar stimulation of each implant electrode was carried out, and the resultant waveform and transimpedance matrix (TIM) data obtained from the recording electrodes. This was repeated with each implant rotated 180 degrees in the cochlea model to examine the effects of electrode orientation. Impedance spectroscopy was also carried out at the apex, middle, and base of the model. RESULTS: The four cochlear implants displayed similar TIM profiles and waveforms. One hundred eighty degrees rotation of each cochlear implant made little difference to the TIM profiles. Impedance spectroscopy demonstrated broad similarities in amplitude and phase across the implants, but exhibited differences in certain electrical parameters. CONCLUSION: Implants with different designs demonstrate similar electrical performance, regardless of electrode size and spacing or electrode array dimension. In addition, rotatory maneuvers during cochlear implantation surgery are unlikely to change implant impedance properties.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".