Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
OBJECTIVE: This paper reports some preliminary findings from patients, implanted at the University of Iowa, using the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant (version 1.0). We compared the performance of patients using both simultaneous analog and nonsimultaneous pulsatile processing strategies. The performance of Clarion patients was also compared with a group of patients who were using either the feature-extraction Nucleus cochlear implant or the compressed-analog Ineraid cochlear implant. DESIGN: One aim was to compare the analog and pulsatile stimulation in 19 patients using the Clarion implant. This aim could be accomplished only partially because of difficulties encountered in adequately fitting patients with the analog strategy. A second aim was to compare the Clarion users' performance with feature-extraction Nucleus and compressed-analog Ineraid patients. Comparisons were made with all patients having 9 mo experience postimplantation. RESULTS: Subjects performed better using the pulsatile mode compared with the analog mode. All subjects chose to use the pulsatile strategy after the first 3 mo of the study. Results comparing performance at 9 mo with our compressed-analog Ineraid and feature-extraction Nucleus patients indicated, in general, better average performance for the Clarion users. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the pulsatile version of the Clarion cochlear implant typically produces superior performance to the analog version of that device at this stage in its development. After 9 mo of experience, users of the Clarion implant are performing better than are users of the feature-extraction Nucleus and compressed-analog Ineraid cochlear implants with comparable amounts of experience.
Tyler et al. (Sun,) studied this question.