ABSTRACT
This study addresses the following questions: Is there a difference in open-set recognition among patients using House and Nucleus devices? How many subjects are needed to determine statistically significant differences between devices? The subjects were 12 patients, six with House and six with Nucleus cochlear prostheses. Using open-set tests from the Minimum Auditory Capabilities Battery, the Nucleus group had significantly better scores than the House device group. Our sample size was adequate in part because the House device group scored near zero. To determine moderate differences between groups with scores of 10% or better, approximately 20 paired or 60 unpaired subjects would be needed in each group.
Subject(s)
Audiometry, Speech , Cochlear Implants , Adult , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Humans , Middle Aged , Statistics as TopicABSTRACT
The complexity of coding in the auditory nerve makes it unlikely that a prosthesis for deaf persons can exactly duplicate the normal function of the ear. With recent advances, however, cochlear prostheses can perform some of the frequency-analysis functions of the normal ear. Cochlear prostheses are effective aids to lipreading and allow recognition of some sounds without visual cues, thus enhancing the profoundly deaf person's communication skills substantially.
