Related Experiment Videos
Initial independent results with the Clarion cochlear implant
R S Tyler1, B J Gantz, G G Woodworth
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA.
Ear and Hearing
|December 1, 1996
Summary
The pulsatile Clarion cochlear implant demonstrated superior performance compared to its analog version. Clarion implant users also outperformed those using Nucleus and Ineraid cochlear implants after nine months.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Biomedical Engineering
- Neurosurgery
Background:
- Cochlear implants are devices that provide a sense of sound to profoundly deaf people.
- Various processing strategies exist for cochlear implants, impacting device performance.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the performance of the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant (version 1.0) using analog versus pulsatile processing strategies.
- To compare Clarion implant users' performance with users of Nucleus (feature-extraction) and Ineraid (compressed-analog) cochlear implants.
Main Methods:
- 19 patients using the Clarion implant were assessed with both analog and pulsatile strategies.
- Patient performance was compared after 9 months of post-implantation experience.
- Challenges were noted in adequately fitting patients with the analog strategy.
Main Results:
- Patients performed significantly better with the pulsatile processing strategy compared to the analog strategy.
- All participants preferred and exclusively used the pulsatile strategy after three months.
- Clarion implant users showed generally better average performance at nine months compared to Nucleus and Ineraid implant users.
Conclusions:
- The pulsatile version of the Clarion cochlear implant offers superior performance over the analog version.
- After nine months, Clarion implant users demonstrated better outcomes than users of Nucleus and Ineraid implants with similar experience levels.