Comparing Cochlear Implant Coding Strategies: SPEAK/ACE vs. MP3000
Author Information
Author(s): Buechner Andreas, Beynon Andy, Szyfter Witold, Niemczyk Kazimierz, Hoppe Ulrich, Hey Matthias, Brokx Jan, Eyles Julie, Van de Heyning Paul, Paludetti Gaetano, Zarowski Andrzej, Quaranta Nicola, Wesarg Thomas, Festen Joost, Olze Heidi, Dhooge Ingeborg, Müller-Deile Joachim, Ramos Angel, Roman Stephane, Piron Jean-Pierre, Cuda Domenico, Burdo Sandro, Grolman Wilko, Vaillard Samantha Roux, Huarte Alicia, Frachet Bruno, Morera Constantine, Garcia-Ibáñez Luis, Abels Daniel, Walger Martin, Müller-Mazotta Jochen, Leone Carlo Antonio, Meyer Bernard, Dillier Norbert, Steffens Thomas, Gentine André, Mazzoli Manuela, Rypkema Gerben, Killian Matthijs, Smoorenburg Guido
Hypothesis
Does the new MP3000 coding strategy improve performance compared to the traditional SPEAK and ACE strategies in cochlear implants?
Conclusion
The MP3000 coding strategy allows for fewer channels without losing performance and increases battery life by 24%.
Supporting Evidence
- The study included 221 subjects from 37 European implant centers.
- Battery life was 24% longer for the MP3000 strategy compared to SPEAK/ACE.
- No significant difference was found in speech scores between the two strategies.
- Subjects preferred the higher number of channels for better performance in noise.
- Steeper slopes in the MP3000 strategy yielded better speech scores.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways cochlear implants can process sound. One way uses more channels but the new way uses fewer channels and still works just as well, plus it saves battery life.
Methodology
The study involved 221 subjects from 37 European implant centers, comparing speech scores and preferences between the SPEAK/ACE and MP3000 strategies.
Potential Biases
Potential bias from subjects withdrawing due to concerns about performance reduction with MP3000.
Limitations
The study did not include a SPEAK/ACE condition with 4–6 channels, limiting the ability to fully assess the MP3000 coding principle.
Participant Demographics
Median age was 55 years, with a range of 12–85 years; 12% had severe-to-profound hearing loss for over 30 years.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website