CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT04922619Updated Oct 20, 2021

Study of Music and Speech Perception in New Cochlear Implanted Subjects Using or Not a Tonotopy Based Fitting

An interventional study of tonotopy based fitting then default fitting and default fitting then tonotopy based fitting in Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral, sponsored by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH. Completed at 1 site in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-10-20.

Sponsored by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
26
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Main objective:

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception speech in noise.

Secondary objectives:

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception of musical elements (contour test).

Show the non inferiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception of speech elements in quiet.

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the qualitative preference for the listening of musical pieces.

Read the detailed description

Introduction: Cochlear implantation allows the rehabilitation of profound bilateral deafness, restoring speech perception and verbal communication when the traditional hearing aid no longer provides satisfactory hearing gain (Nimmons et al.).

A cochlear implant includes an electrode array and its functioning is based on the principle of cochlear tonotopy: each electrode encodes a frequency spectrum according to its position in the cochlea (high frequencies are assigned to the basal electrodes and low frequencies to the apical electrodes).

The cochlear implant thus breaks down the frequency spectrum into a number of frequency bands via bandpass filters corresponding to the number of electrodes in the implant. During the fitting these bands can be modified by the audiologist.

The fitting software developed by the manufacturers proposed a default fitting with a lower limit between 100 and 250 Hz according to the brands and an upper limit of about 8500 Hz. The frequency bands assigned to each electrode follow a logarithmic scale with the high frequencies for the basal electrodes and the low frequencies for the apical electrodes. This distribution takes into account the number of active electrodes but does not take into account the anatomy and the natural cochlear tonotopy specific to each patient.

Several studies have analyzed the anatomical variations of the cochlear dimensions: size of the cochlea and the ratio between the contact surfaces of the electrodes with the cochlea are variable from one patient to another (Stakhovskaya O et al., P. Pelliccia et al.).

The insertion depth during surgery is also variable due to parameters related to the patients as well as to the operator, which seems to impact the understanding of speech in noise (Deep electrode insertion and sound coding in cochlear implants - Ingeborg Hochmair et al.).

Mathematical algorithms have recently been developed to estimate the cochlear tonotopy of each patient from a CT scan assessment (Jiam et al., Sridhar et al.). CT imaging of the implanted ear combined with 3D reconstruction software, provides cochlear length measurements (Cochlear length determination using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a clinical setting - Würfel et al .) Using this approach it is possible to measure the position of each electrode relative to the cochlear apex. These measurements are applied to the modified Greenwood equation to obtain the tonotopic frequency for each electrode and to determine for each patient a fitting based on the tonotopy of each electrode.

Main objective:

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception speech in noise.

Secondary objectives:

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception of musical elements (contour test).

Show the non inferiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the perception of speech elements in quiet.

Show the superiority of tonotopy based fitting strategy compared to default fitting strategy on the qualitative preference for the listening of musical pieces.

Plan of the study:

It is a prospective open monocentric randomized crossover study: measures will be done on the patient at 6 weeks and 12 weeks post-activation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Sensorineural Hearing Loss, Bilateral

Keywords

  • cochlear implant strategy
  • tonotopy based fitting
03

In context

Hearing Loss

1,092 studies on the registry are indexed under Hearing Loss; 235 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 26 is below the median of 40 across 764 interventional studies indexed under Hearing Loss.

Browse Hearing Loss studies →

Lead sponsor

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH is the lead sponsor of 35 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Adult patient (>= 18 years old) speaking French
  • Patient who fulfils the criteria for cochlear implantation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • retro-cochlear pathology: auditory neuropathy, vestibular schwannoma
  • patient with residual hearing \< 60 dB HL at 250 Hz and \< 80 dB HL at 500 Hz
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
26 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Cochlear Implant (CI) with default fitting then tonotopy based fitting

    Cochlear Implant with default fitting first during 6 weeks then with tonotopy based fitting during 6 weeks

    Device: tonotopy based fitting then default fitting · Device: default fitting then tonotopy based fitting

  • Active comparator
    Cochlear Implant (CI) with tonotopy based fitting then default fitting

    Cochlear Implant with tonotopy based fitting during 6 weeks then with default fitting during 6 weeks

    Device: tonotopy based fitting then default fitting · Device: default fitting then tonotopy based fitting

Interventions

  • Devicetonotopy based fitting then default fitting

    Cochlear implant with default fitting then tonotopy based fitting

  • Devicedefault fitting then tonotopy based fitting

    Cochlear implant with tonotopy based fitting then default fitting

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. speech recognition in noise

    The speech recognition in noise is evaluated with syllabic list of 40 phonemes. The patient has to recognize 20 syllables. The phonemes are scored: each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%). Signal-noise-ratios of 9, 6, 3 and 0 dB will be tested with speech at 65 dB SPL.

    Time frame: at 6 weeks post-activation

  2. speech recognition in noise

    The speech recognition in noise is evaluated with syllabic list of 40 phonemes. The patient has to recognize 20 syllables. The phonemes are scored: each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%). Signal-noise-ratios of 9, 6, 3 and 0 dB will be tested with speech at 65 dB SPL.

    Time frame: at 12 weeks post-activation

Secondary outcomes

  1. speech recognition in quiet

    The speech recognition in quiet is evaluated with syllabic list of 40 phonemes. The patient has to recognize 20 syllables. The phonemes are scored: each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).

    Time frame: at 6 weeks post-activation

  2. speech recognition in quiet

    The speech recognition in quiet is evaluated with syllabic list of 40 phonemes. The patient has to recognize 20 syllables. The phonemes are scored: each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).

    Time frame: at 12 weeks post-activation

  3. Melodic contour test

    The test stimuli of the melodic contour test (Galvin et al. 2007) are melodic contours composed of 5 notes of equal duration whose frequencies correspond to musical intervals. Nine distinct musical patterns have to be identified by the patient. Each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).

    Time frame: at 6 weeks post-activation

  4. Melodic contour test

    The test stimuli of the melodic contour test (Galvin et al. 2007) are melodic contours composed of 5 notes of equal duration whose frequencies correspond to musical intervals. Nine distinct musical patterns have to be identified by the patient. Each good answer is scored 1 yielding a total between 0 and 1 (or 0% and 100%).

    Time frame: at 12 weeks post-activation

  5. Qualitative measure of music

    The Gabrielsson scale (1988) is used to evaluate perceived sound quality as a multidimensional phenomenon, that is composed of a number of separate perceptual dimensions. Eight perceptual dimensions are evaluated: clarity, fullness, brightness vs dullness, hardness/sharpness vs softness, spaciousness, nearness, extraneous sound, loudness. Visual analog scales (VAS) are used for each dimension and the patient has to score the dimension on a 10 cm VAS (between 0 to 10).

    Time frame: at 6 weeks post-activation

  6. Qualitative measure of music

    The Gabrielsson scale (1988) is used to evaluate perceived sound quality as a multidimensional phenomenon, that is composed of a number of separate perceptual dimensions. Eight perceptual dimensions are evaluated: clarity, fullness, brightness vs dullness, hardness/sharpness vs softness, spaciousness, nearness, extraneous sound, loudness. Visual analog scales (VAS) are used for each dimension and the patient has to score the dimension on a 10 cm VAS (between 0 to 10).

    Time frame: at 12 weeks post-activation

07

Study locations

1 site
  • CHU Rennes
    Rennes, 35000, France
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Oct 20, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04922619
Lead sponsor
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GesmbH
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 10, 2021
Start date
Jun 10, 2021
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2021
Completion
Sep 30, 2021
Last update
Oct 20, 2021

Study contacts

Benoit Godey, Pr
principal investigator · Rennes University Hospital

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion