ArticleHNO2025
[Cochlear implant microphone check using data logging].
Article in HNO, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe technical inspection of internal and external components is an integral part of cochlear implant (CI) aftercare. The speech processor (SP) is routinely checked to ensure that the microphones are fully functional. Depending on the SP, these can be listened to by specialist personnel or checked in the CI fitting software. Microphone defects can also be revealed by poor hearing performance. Modern CI systems also record the duration of use of the SP and exposure to certain listening environments via data logging. In a bilateral CI fitting, large deviations in the detected hearing environment between both processors could indicate faulty microphones. The aim of this study is to compare the data logging entries of bilateral CI users in order to identify potential microphone failures. METHODOLOGY: The retrospective data analysis includes 359 bilateral CI users who received a Cochlear Nucleus 6 system or higher. The individual data logging entries were analyzed with respect to the duration of CI use and duration of the listening scenarios quiet, speech in quiet, speech in noise, noise and music and both sides were compared. With a comparable duration of CI use, deviations of more than 15% between the listening scenarios of the left and right SP were considered conspicuous.
resultsOf the 718 SPs examined 9 were rated as conspicuous. With a comparable CI use of the left and right SP, significant differences of up to 54% were detected between the two devices in the quiet listening environment. One of the SPs recognized only the quiet scene to 100%. Based on two case examples the period of the patient's wearing behavior, the listening environments and the detectable differences between the two individual SPs during CI aftercare are presented in detail.
conclusionThe information from the data logging enables the detection of possible microphone defects. The data are automatically read out and displayed anyway during the CI fitting. It is recommended to integrate the data logging information into the clinical routine as part of the technical check.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.