Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background: There is little data available addressing how clinical audiologists handle cochlear implant (CI) programming between device manufacturers and make decisions on related services, particularly in the United States.Objectives: This study sought to understand the techniques and settings professionals use with their patients, how they approach bimodal fitting, which tests they use to evaluate patient and device performance, and their overall preferences of (re)habilitative options.Methods: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to CI audiologists throughout the United States electronically.Results: All respondents reported either always or almost always using Cochlear’s default signal processing strategy in contrast to the 64% reported for Med-El and 40% for Advanced Bionics. A trend of less use of electrically evoked stapedial reflex threshold (eSRT) than electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAP) for objective measures was revealed. Higher likelihood of performing speech recognition tests in quiet than in noise was revealed. Preferences for bimodal fitting trend toward using a partner company’s hearing aid, although preferences were comparable in adopting four types of hearing aid formulas surveyed in the questionnaire.Conclusions: These data confirm high variability among audiologists’ CI programming practices, and documenting these differences is an important step to understanding how to best treat patients.
Browning et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: