Survey of selective electrode deactivation attitudes and practices by cochlear implant audiologists

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to explore clinician attitudes regarding selective electrode deactivation and to investigate the primary methodology used to identify poorly encoded electrodes, deactivate identified electrodes, and measure outcomes.

Methods

An online survey consisting of 32 questions was administered to certified clinical and research cochlear implant (CI) audiologists. Questions asked participants about their demographic information, device programming patterns, and attitudes regarding selective electrode deactivation.

Results

Fifty-four audiologists completed the survey. When asked whether they believed selectively deactivating poorly encoded electrodes could improve speech perception outcomes, 43% of respondents selected ‘Probably Yes,’ 39% selected ‘Definitely Yes,’ and 18% selected ‘Might or Might Not.’ Of those who reported deactivating electrodes as part of CI programming, various methodology was reported to identify and deactivate poorly encoding electrodes and evaluate effectiveness of deactivation. General reasons against deactivation were also reported.

Discussion

CI audiologists generally believed selective electrode deactivation could be used to improve speech perception outcomes for patients; however, few reported implementing selective electrode deactivation in practice. Among those who do perform selective electrode deactivation, the reported methodology was highly variable.

Conclusion

These findings support the need for clinical practice guidelines to assist audiologists in performing selective electrode deactivation.

Keywords:

• Cochlear Implant
• Programming
• Clinical Practice
• Electrode Deactivation
• Survey
• Speech Perception

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Jordan Alyse Coffelt, Au.D. (University of Memphis) for her contributions regarding appropriate survey content. We would also like to thank Fawaz Mzayek, MD, MPH, Ph.D. (University of Memphis) for his expertise in survey design and assistance with development of the survey, as well as Gavin Bidelman, Ph.D. (University of Memphis) for his thoughtful insight and comments that greatly improved the manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Kara L. Sander

Kara L. Sander, B.A., is a fourth-year dual Au.D./Ph.D. student at the University of Memphis School of Communication Sciences and Disorders. Her research interests include cochlear implant programming, speech perception assessment, and epidemiologic implementation science.

Sarah E. Warren

Sarah E. Warren, Au.D., Ph.D., M.P.H. is an Assistant Professor of Audiology in the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Memphis. Her research interests include pediatric audiology, cochlear implant programming, and evidence-based approaches to improving population health outcomes.

Lisa Lucks Mendel

Lisa Lucks Mendel, Ph.D. is a Professor of Audiology in the School of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Memphis. Her research interests include speech perception assessment, speech perception outcomes for cochlear implant users, and counseling.