Patient Directed Basal Electrode Deactivation Is Associated with Diminished Audibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cochlear implantation (CI) has revolutionized patient care, however speech and audibility outcomes vary between recipients. This study evaluates post-operative CI performance in recipients with an intact electrode array compared to a smaller subset with one or more basal electrodes deactivated to ascertain any significant differences in speech perception. Methods: A retrospective review of a single CI centre database (from 2011-2021) in [BLINDED], using a Mid-Scala electrode, with focus on recipients identified with one or more deactivated basal electrodes was performed. Comparisons between conventional users and the deactivated cohort included aided pure tone testing in sound field and open-set sentence recognition scores (AzBio) at one-year post activation. Subjective measures were collected to assess overall satisfaction with devices. Results: 48 individuals out of 167 adult recipients had selected for deactivation of basal electrodes. Reasons for deactivation included sound quality and lack of sound percept. There were no significant differences in pre-operative status or demographics between the two cohorts. T-Test analysis found significant differences in aided thresholds between the “intact” and “deactivated” electrode cohorts at 4KHz and 6KHz (p <0.01). Mean post-operative speech perception was also significantly worse in the “deactivated” cohort (48.5% compared to 59.0%) at 1-year post activation (p<0.01). There were no significant differences found between groups in overall satisfaction with their CI. Conclusion: Patient request for basal electrode deactivation owing to subjective sound quality illustrates decreased audibility and speech perception, however CI satisfaction is preserved.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".