Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

The Cochlea01:13

The Cochlea

46.1K
The cochlea is a coiled structure in the inner ear that contains hair cells—the sensory receptors of the auditory system. Sound waves are transmitted to the cochlea by small bones attached to the eardrum called the ossicles, which vibrate the oval window that leads to the inner ear. This causes fluid in the chambers of the cochlea to move, vibrating the basilar membrane.
46.1K
Auditory Pathway01:15

Auditory Pathway

5.9K
Auditory pathways constitute the complex neural circuits responsible for transmitting and interpreting auditory information from the peripheral auditory system to the brain. Sound waves are initially captured by the outer ear, funneled through the ear canal, and reach the tympanic membrane (eardrum). These vibrations are transmitted via the middle ear's ossicles to the inner ear's cochlea.
When viewed cross-sectionally, the cochlea reveals the scala vestibuli and scala tympani flanking...
5.9K
Auditory Perception01:17

Auditory Perception

614
The auditory system is essential for sound perception, utilizing various critical structures. When sound waves enter the outer ear, they travel through the ear canal and cause the eardrum to vibrate. These vibrations are then transmitted to the middle ear, where three tiny bones – the malleus, incus, and stapes – amplify the sound. This amplification is crucial, as it ensures that the sound vibrations are strong enough to be conveyed to the inner ear. These vibrations then reach the...
614
The Auditory Ossicles01:11

The Auditory Ossicles

2.1K
The auditory ossicles of the middle ear transmit sounds from the air as vibrations to the fluid-filled cochlea. The auditory ossicles consist of two malleus (hammer) bones, two incus (anvil) bones, and two stapes (stirrups), one on each side. These bones develop during the fetal stage and are the ones to ossify first. They are fully mature at birth and do not grow afterward.
The aptly named stapes look very much like a stirrup. The three ossicles are unique to mammals, and each plays a role in...
2.1K
Hearing01:31

Hearing

53.2K
When we hear a sound, our nervous system is detecting sound waves—pressure waves of mechanical energy traveling through a medium. The frequency of the wave is perceived as pitch, while the amplitude is perceived as loudness.
53.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Audiometric evaluation and quality-of-life in OSIA users - a retrospective monocentric study.

Laryngo- rhino- otologie·2026
Same author

[Update on Active Middle Ear and Transcutaneous Bone Conduction Hearing Systems].

Laryngo- rhino- otologie·2026
Same author

A computationally efficient music processing algorithm for cochlear implants based on an auditory adaptation model.

JASA express letters·2026
Same author

A PRSZT Registry Analysis of Prognostic Factors Influencing Survival and Relapse Rates After Second Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Pediatric Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

Pediatric blood & cancer·2026
Same author

Risks and complications within wax removal - Results of a survey and AI-based literature research.

Laryngo- rhino- otologie·2026
Same author

Hidden SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infections in Young Children: What Routine Tests Do Not Tell.

International archives of otorhinolaryngology·2026
Same journal

Sudden Traumatic Noise Exposure Induces an altered wave I in the Auditory Brainstem Response in Human.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
Same journal

Test Equivalency of the Spanish and English AzBio Sentences Among Bilingual Normal Hearers.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
Same journal

Inner Ear Test Battery Aligned with Hydrops Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Differentiate Acute-Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
Same journal

Audiometric Outcomes and Longitudinal Trends of Sequential Cochlear Implantation in Adults with Bilateral Deafness: A 20-Year Single-Center Study.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
Same journal

Pediatric Robotic Cochlear Implantation: Hearing Outcomes.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
Same journal

A Prospective Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Smartphone Weber Test in Unilateral Hearing Loss.

Audiology & neuro-otology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Sep 24, 2025

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

477

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Christiane Völter1, Kirsten Oberländer2, Imme Haubitz1

  • 1Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Cochlear Implant Center Ruhrgebiet, St Elisabeth-Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Audiology & Neuro-Otology
|May 9, 2022
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Poor cochlear implant (CI) performers show distinct deficits in cognitive and linguistic abilities compared to average performers. These differences, particularly in rapid word retrieval, suggest targeted training could improve speech perception for some CI users.

Keywords:
Cochlear implantationNeurocognitive testingPoor performerSpeech performanceWord retrieval

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery
06:54

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

1.3K
Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice
09:06

Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice

Published on: January 9, 2019

14.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Sep 24, 2025

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages
06:04

Systematic Hearing Performance Evaluation Process for Adolescents with Cochlear Implantation at Early Ages

Published on: March 24, 2023

477
Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery
06:54

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

1.3K
Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice
09:06

Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice

Published on: January 9, 2019

14.1K

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Audiology
  • Cognitive Science

Background:

  • Speech perception in cochlear implant (CI) users is influenced by various factors, with mechanisms not fully understood.
  • A subset of CI users, termed poor performers (PP), exhibit limited benefit, unlike average performers (AP) and star performers (SP).
  • Previous research indicated PP differ from SP in cognitive and linguistic tests; this study compares PP to AP.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate if poor performers (PP) in cochlear implant (CI) use differ from average performers (AP) in cognitive and linguistic abilities.
  • To identify specific non-auditory factors contributing to varied speech perception outcomes in CI users.
  • To explore potential targets for therapeutic interventions to enhance CI efficacy.

Main Methods:

  • Seventeen AP, 15 PP, and 19 SP adult CI users underwent comprehensive neurocognitive and linguistic assessments.
  • Tests included measures of attention, working memory, memory recall, verbal fluency, inhibition, word retrieval, lexical decision, and phonological input lexicon.
  • Statistical analysis utilized U-tests and discrimination analysis to compare performance groups.

Main Results:

  • Significant differences were found between PP and AP in linguistic tests, including Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and lexical decision tasks.
  • AP demonstrated superior neurocognitive performance compared to PP in attention and working memory domains.
  • Performance on the understanding of incomplete words (TRT) and RAN effectively differentiated PP from AP with 100% accuracy.

Conclusions:

  • Poor performers (PP) represent a distinct group of cochlear implant (CI) users with identifiable non-auditory cognitive and linguistic differences compared to average performers (AP).
  • Deficits in rapid word retrieval, potentially linked to phonological processing or storage limitations, characterize PP.
  • Future research should explore the efficacy of targeted phonological and semantic training to improve speech perception in this subgroup of CI users.