Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 May 15;12(5):e0174900.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174900. eCollection 2017.

Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis

Andreas Büchner  1 , Angelika Illg  1 , Omid Majdani  1 , Thomas Lenarz  1
Affiliations

Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis

Andreas Büchner et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: This investigation evaluated the effect of cochlear implant (CI) electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise and compare the results with those of EAS users.

Methodes: 91 adults with some degree of residual hearing were implanted with a FLEX20, FLEX24, or FLEX28 electrode. Some subjects were postoperative electric-acoustic-stimulation (EAS) users; the other subjects were in the groups of electric stimulation-only (ES-only). Speech perception was tested in quiet and noise at 3 and 6 months of ES or EAS use. Speech comprehension results were analyzed and correlated to electrode length.

Results: While the FLEX20 ES and FLEX24 ES groups were still in their learning phase between the 3 to 6 months interval, the FLEX28 ES group was already reaching a performance plateau at the three months appointment yielding remarkably high test scores. EAS subjects using FLEX20 or FLEX24 electrodes outscored ES-only subjects with the same short electrodes on all 3 tests at each interval, reaching significance with FLEX20 ES and FLEX24 ES subjects on all 3 tests at the 3-months interval and on 2 tests at the 6- months interval. Amongst ES-only subjects at the 3- months interval, FLEX28 ES subjects significantly outscored FLEX20 ES subjects on all 3 tests and the FLEX24 ES subjects on 2 tests. At the-6 months interval, FLEX28 ES subjects still exceeded the other ES-only subjects although the difference did not reach significance.

Conclusions: Among ES-only users, the FLEX28 ES users had the best speech comprehension scores, at the 3- months appointment and tendentially at the 6 months appointment. EAS users showed significantly better speech comprehension results compared to ES-only users with the same short electrodes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: Company MedEl payed for one scientific congress charge, traveling and hotel costs for Angelika Illg in the past (2015). This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Pre- and postoperative median hearing levels, minimum and maximum for all 97 ears, divided into groups: A = preoperatively, B = postoperatively.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Median, interquartile, and minimum and maximum scores after 3 months, statistical significance is marked with * for p<0.05 and ** for p<0.01 A) Freiburg Monosyllables, B) HSM sentences in quiet, C) HSM sentences in noise.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Median, interquartile, and minimum and maximum scores after 6 months: A) Freiburg Monosyllables, B) HSM sentences in quiet, C) HSM sentences in noise, statistical significance is marked with * for p<0.05 and ** for p<0.01.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Median, interquartile, and minimum and maximum scores between scores after 3 and 6 months: A) Freiburg Monosyllables, B) HSM sentences in quiet, C) HSM sentences in noise.
Significant differences of 3- and 6 months data and intragroup comparison are marked with * for p<0.05 and ** for p<0.01.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. von Ilberg CA, Baumann U, Kiefer J, Tillein J, Adunka OF. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: a review of the first decade. Audiol Neurootol. 2011;16 Suppl 2:1–30. Epub 2011 May 24. - PubMed
    1. Helbig S; Baumann U; Helbig M; von Malsen-Waldkirch N; Gstoettner W. A new combined speech processor for electric and acoustic stimulation—eight months experience. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2008;70(6):359–65. Epub 2008 Nov 4. 10.1159/000163031 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Helms Tillery K, Brown CA, Bacon SP. Comparing the effects of reverberation and noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening. J Acoust Soc Am 2012;131:416–23. 10.1121/1.3664101 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Büchner A, Schüssler M, Battmer RD, Stöver T, Lesinski-Schiedat A, Lenarz T. Impact of low-frequency hearing. Audiol Neurotol 2009;14 Suppl 1:8–13. - PubMed
    1. Lenarz T, Stöver T, Buechner A, Paasche G, Briggs R, Risi F, et al. Temporal bone results and hearing preservation with a new straight electrode. Audiol Neurotol 2006;11 Suppl 1:34–41. - PubMed