The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Role of Electrode Placement as a Contributor to Variability in Cochlear Implant Outcomes
Open accessAbstract
HYPOTHESIS: Suboptimal cochlear implant (CI) electrode array placement may reduce presentation of coded information to the central nervous system and, consequently, limit speech recognition. BACKGROUND: Generally, mean speech reception scores for CI recipients are similar across different CI systems, yet large outcome variation is observed among recipients implanted with the same device. These observations suggest significant recipient-dependent factors influence speech reception performance. This study examines electrode array insertion depth and scalar placement as recipient-dependent factors affecting outcome. METHODS: Scalar location and depth of insertion of intracochlear electrodes were measured in 14 patients implanted with Advanced Bionics electrode arrays and whose word recognition scores varied broadly. Electrode position was measured using computed tomographic images of the cochlea and correlated with stable monosyllabic word recognition scores. RESULTS: Electrode placement, primarily in terms of depth of insertion and scala tympani versus scala vestibuli location, varies widely across subjects. Lower outcome scores are associated with greater insertion depth and greater number of contacts being located in scala vestibuli. Three patterns of scalar placement are observed suggesting variability in insertion dynamics arising from surgical technique. CONCLUSION: A significant portion of variability in word recognition scores across a broad range of performance levels of CI subjects is explained by variability in scalar location and insertion depth of the electrode array. We suggest that this variability in electrode placement can be reduced and average speech reception improved by better selection of cochleostomy sites, revised insertion approaches, and control of insertion depth during surgical placement of the array.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation
Zeng, F.-G., Rebscher, S., Harrison, W., Sun, X., & Feng, H. (2008) · IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1109/rbme.2008.2008250 · Cited by 878
Blamey, P., Artieres, F., Başkent, D., Bergeron, F., Beynon, A., Burke, E., Dillier, N., Dowell, R., Fraysse, B., Gallégo, S., et al. (2013) · Audiology and Neurotology · doi:10.1159/000343189 · Cited by 676
Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation
Zhu, Z., Tang, Q., Zeng, F.-G., Guan, T., & Ye, D. (2012) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005 · Cited by 115
Eisner, F., McGettigan, C., Faulkner, A., Rosen, S., & Scott, S. K. (2010) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4040-09.2010 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Finley, C. C., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., Whiting, B. R., Chole, R. A., Neely, G. J., Hullar, T. E., & Skinner, M. W.
- Venue
- Otology & Neurotology
- Published
- 2008-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 920-928
- ISSN
- 1531-7129 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1973593620
- Cited by
- 549
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Role of Electrode Placement as a Contributor to Variability in Cochlear Implant Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mao.0b013e318184f492
- The paper
- Finley, C. C., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., Whiting, B. R., Chole, R. A., Neely, G. J., Hullar, T. E., & Skinner, M. W. (2008). Role of Electrode Placement as a Contributor to Variability in Cochlear Implant Outcomes. Otology & Neurotology. https://doi.org/10.1097/mao.0b013e318184f492
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.