Customized strategies for managing cochlear implant stimulation side effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cochlear implants restore functional hearing but may cause side effects like facial nerve stimulation, sound sensitivity or reactive tinnitus. The present study aimed to establish a general framework for optimizing stimulation parameters to manage these side effects while maximizing speech perception performance. A second objective was to understand how side effect origins impact treatment outcomes. METHODS: Eight adult cochlear implant subjects had intolerable side effects that rendered device usage difficult or even impossible. New maps were created by reducing stimulation levels, increasing pulse duration, reducing stimulation rate, altering channel gains and frequency maps, deactivating problematic electrodes, or a combination of the above. Outcomes were measured in terms of side effect reduction and changes in speech performance. RESULTS: Facial nerve stimulation was reduced or eliminated in five of five subjects. Sound hypersensitivity was eliminated in two of two subjects. Tinnitus was alleviated in three of four subjects, while the remaining one with cerebellar malformation experienced no change. Speech performance was either maintained or improved in all subjects. Except for the subject with cerebellar malformation who chose to explant the device, all subjects were able to use the implant effectively without bothersome side effects. DISCUSSION: Facial nerve stimulation is usually related to electric current spread on the same side, which can be effectively managed by customized strategies. In contrast, the origins of sound sensitivity and reactive tinnitus are more variable and likely more difficult to manage. CONCLUSION: Customized mapping can alleviate cochlear implant side effects without compromising speech performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".