ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT06734039Updated Mar 27, 2026

Impact of Anatomy-Based Cochlear Implant Programming on Early Performance

An interventional study of Programming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings in Hearing Loss, Unilateral, Cochlear Implants and Hearing Loss, Sensorineural, sponsored by Med-El Corporation. Enrolling by invitation at 6 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-27.

Sponsored by Med-El Corporation · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of different audio processor frequency settings on performance outcomes in new cochlear implant users using electric-only stimulation in the implanted ear with normal hearing to moderately severe hearing loss in the opposite ear.

Read the detailed description

Participants will be randomized into a starting frequency setting at device activation or shortly after device activation for the first three months of device use. After 3 months listening experience, participants will be randomized into different frequency settings and tested before and after a period of listening experience. Participant outcomes for each of the multiple frequency settings will be evaluated using standard clinical speech testing and through questionnaires designed to capture information about patient sound quality and quality of life.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hearing Loss, Unilateral
  • Cochlear Implants
  • Hearing Loss, Sensorineural
  • Single-Sided Deafness (SSD)
  • Asymmetric Hearing Loss

Keywords

  • cochlear implant
  • Single-Sided Deafness
03

In context

Hearing Loss, Unilateral

51 studies on the registry are indexed under Hearing Loss, Unilateral; 7 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 50 is above the median of 35 across 35 interventional studies indexed under Hearing Loss, Unilateral.

Browse Hearing Loss, Unilateral studies →

Lead sponsor

Med-El Corporation is the lead sponsor of 16 studies on the registry; 1 is open to participants now.

Of its 10 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 7 (70%) have results posted.

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

Eligibility criteria

  • At least 18 years of age
  • Is a cochlear implant candidate as deemed by the participating center
  • Implanted (or to be implanted) unilaterally with a MED-EL cochlear implant with moderately severe or better acoustic hearing in the contralateral ear.
  • For patients who are already implanted, device activation must have occurred within 2 weeks of enrollment
  • Patients with moderate contralateral hearing loss or greater must utilize a hearing aid in the contralateral ear.
  • Programmed with electric-only stimulation in the implanted ear
  • The ear to be implanted, acoustic hearing thresholds must be no better than 50 dBHL at 250 Hz and 65 dBHL at 500 Hz
  • Post-operative CT scan allows for completion of OTOPLAN analysis
  • ABF settings possible at defaults in clinical programming software
  • Minimum of 10 active electrodes at activation
  • Programmed using a Fine Structure coding strategy
  • English is the primary language
  • Willing and able to comply with all scheduled procedures as defined in the protocol

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Subjects who do not meet one or more of the above-mentioned inclusion criteria are excluded from the study
  • Subjects required to use a hearing aid per inclusion criteria who stop use of a hearing aid in the contralateral ear will be withdrawn at the time of discontinued hearing aid use
  • Subjects who receive a cochlear implant in the contralateral ear prior to the 12-month interval
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Crossover assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
50 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Default Clinical Frequency Setting

    The audio processor frequency setting will be programmed based on current frequency defaults in the clinical programming software

    Device: Programming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings

  • Active comparator
    Default Anatomy-Based Fitting

    The audio processor frequency setting will be programmed based on current anatomy-based fitting frequency defaults in the clinical programming software

    Device: Programming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings

  • Experimental
    Experimental Anatomy-Based Fitting 1

    The audio processor frequency setting will be programmed using experimental settings for anatomy-based fitting using individual anatomical information obtained from analysis of post-operative imaging.

    Device: Programming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings

  • Experimental
    Experimental Anatomy-Based Fitting 2

    The audio processor frequency setting will be programmed with experimental settings for anatomy-based fitting using individual anatomical information obtained from analysis of post-operative imaging.

    Device: Programming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings

Interventions

  • DeviceProgramming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings

    Cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings will be adjusted within the clinical programming software

    Also known as: anatomy-based fitting

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percent correct on AzBio Sentences in Noise

    The AzBio sentence test, consisting of lists of 20 sentences spoken by male and female talkers, will be tested in noise in three spatial listening conditions with after listening experience with each frequency setting. Listening conditions include co-located presentation of the target and noise, target presented with noise to the implanted ear, and target presented with noise to the opposite acoustic hearing ear. Outcomes will be reported as percent correct (%).

    Time frame: 3 to 7 months

  2. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life - 35 Profile (CIQoL 35)

    Subjects will complete a 35-item questionnaire with a total score ranging from 0-100% (higher score indicates a higher level of functional ability with a cochlear implant) regarding their subjective listening experience in 6 domains: communication, emotional, entertainment, environment, listening effort, social.

    Time frame: Enrollment to 7 months

Secondary outcomes

  1. Post-operative Audiogram

    Unaided pure-tone audiometric thresholds will be tested for both ears. For patients with moderate to moderately severe hearing loss in the unimplanted ear, thresholds will also be tested in the best-aided condition.

    Time frame: Enrollment and 12 months

  2. Percent Correct on Az Bio Sentences in Noise

    The AzBio sentence test, consisting of lists of 20 sentences spoken by male and female talkers, will be tested in noise in three spatial listening conditions with after listening experience with each frequency setting. Listening conditions include co-located presentation of the target and noise, target presented with noise to the implanted ear, and target presented with noise to the opposite acoustic hearing ear. Outcomes will be reported as percent correct (%).

    Time frame: 12 months

  3. Percent Correct on Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) Words

    The CNC test, consisting of 50 words scored as percent correct, will be tested in quiet after listening experience with each frequency setting for the implanted ear alone.

    Time frame: 3 to 12 months

  4. Subjective feedback questionnaire

    Subjects will complete a non-validated subjective questionnaire assessing their perceptual sound quality prior to and after listening experience with different frequency settings. The questionnaire utilizes multiple choice questions, a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions intended to collect subject feedback.

    Time frame: Enrollment to 12 months

  5. Psychoacoustic Testing of Sound Quality and Preference

    Subjects will listen to speech and non-speech sounds will rate the quality of each sound on a 6-point Likert scale using different frequency settings. Subjects will then be asked to rank the different frequency settings relative to each other for quality and preference.

    Time frame: 7 months

  6. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life- 35 Profile (CIQoL35)

    Subjects will complete a 35-item questionnaire with a total score ranging from 0-100% (higher score indicates a higher level of functional ability with a cochlear implant) regarding their subjective listening experience in 6 domains: communication, emotional, entertainment, environment, listening effort, social.

    Time frame: 12 months

  7. Decisional Regret Scale

    A validated questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to assess decisional regret after cochlear implantation.

    Time frame: 3 to 12 months

07

Study locations

6 sites
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Shannon CM, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Determinants of Cochlear Implant Satisfaction and Decisional Regret in Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Otol Neurotol. 2023 Dec 1;44(10):e722-e729. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000004028. Epub 2023 Oct 19. PubMed 37853774 ↗
  • Sturm JJ, Ma C, McRackan TR, Schvartz-Leyzac KC. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch Impacts Cochlear Implant Quality of Life, But Not Speech Recognition. Laryngoscope. 2024 Jun;134(6):2898-2905. doi: 10.1002/lary.31264. Epub 2024 Jan 12. PubMed 38214299 ↗
  • Kurz A, Herrmann D, Muller-Graff FT, Voelker J, Hackenberg S, Rak K. Anatomy-based fitting improves speech perception in noise for cochlear implant recipients with single-sided deafness. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Jan;282(1):467-479. doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08984-4. Epub 2024 Sep 19. PubMed 39299967 ↗
  • Fan X, Yang T, Fan Y, Song W, Gu W, Lu X, Chen Y, Chen X. Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Feb;281(2):719-729. doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08151-1. Epub 2023 Aug 7. PubMed 37548704 ↗
  • Kurz A, Herrmann D, Hagen R, Rak K. Using Anatomy-Based Fitting to Reduce Frequency-to-Place Mismatch in Experienced Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users: A Promising Concept. J Pers Med. 2023 Jul 8;13(7):1109. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071109. PubMed 37511722 ↗
  • Creff G, Lambert C, Coudert P, Pean V, Laurent S, Godey B. Comparison of Tonotopic and Default Frequency Fitting for Speech Understanding in Noise in New Cochlear Implantees: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Cross-Over Study. Ear Hear. 2024 Jan-Feb 01;45(1):35-52. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001423. Epub 2023 Oct 12. PubMed 37823850 ↗
  • Dillon MT, Canfarotta MW, Buss E, Rooth MA, Richter ME, Overton AB, Roth NE, Dillon SM, Raymond JH, Young A, Pearson AC, Davis AG, Dedmon MM, Brown KD, O'Connell BP. Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users. Am J Audiol. 2023 Mar;32(1):251-260. doi: 10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00254. Epub 2023 Feb 17. PubMed 36800505 ↗
  • Tan CT, Martin B, Svirsky MA. Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017 Mar;28(3):187-199. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15063. PubMed 28277210 ↗
  • Svirsky MA, Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Glassman EK. Bilateral cochlear implants with large asymmetries in electrode insertion depth: implications for the study of auditory plasticity. Acta Otolaryngol. 2015 Apr;135(4):354-63. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.1002052. Epub 2015 Feb 26. PubMed 25719506 ↗
  • Mertens G, Van de Heyning P, Vanderveken O, Topsakal V, Van Rompaey V. The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022 Apr;279(4):1875-1883. doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06899-y. Epub 2021 Jun 15. PubMed 34131770 ↗
  • Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O'Connell BP. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients. Ear Hear. 2020 Sep/Oct;41(5):1349-1361. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000864. PubMed 32205726 ↗
  • Goupell MJ, Noble JH, Phatak SA, Kolberg E, Cleary M, Stakhovskaya OA, Jensen KK, Hoa M, Kim HJ, Bernstein JGW. Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users. Otol Neurotol. 2022 Jul 1;43(6):666-675. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003538. PubMed 35761459 ↗
  • Fitzgerald MB, Prosolovich K, Tan CT, Glassman EK, Svirsky MA. Self-Selection of Frequency Tables with Bilateral Mismatches in an Acoustic Simulation of a Cochlear Implant. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017 May;28(5):385-394. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15077. PubMed 28534729 ↗
  • Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Jackson M, Shapiro WH, Roland JT Jr, Waltzman SB, Svirsky MA. Reimplantation of hybrid cochlear implant users with a full-length electrode after loss of residual hearing. Otol Neurotol. 2008 Feb;29(2):168-73. doi: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31815c4875. PubMed 18165793 ↗
  • Shannon RV. The relative importance of amplitude, temporal, and spectral cues for cochlear implant processor design. Am J Audiol. 2002 Dec;11(2):124-7. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2002/013). PubMed 12691223 ↗
  • Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 1999 Aug;20(4):332-44. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199908000-00006. PubMed 10466569 ↗
  • Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D. Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Nov;102(5 Pt 1):2993-6. doi: 10.1121/1.420354. PubMed 9373986 ↗
09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Nov 2025 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Apr 2028, 29 months after the start.

Of 24 interventional studies with no phase under Hearing Loss, Unilateral, half reached primary completion within 37 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 83. This study's planned 29 months is below that.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Dec 5, 2024
First posted
Dec 13, 2024
StartActual
Nov 10, 2025
Primary completionEst.
Apr 2028
CompletionEst.
Oct 2028
Last update
Mar 27, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 27, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06734039
Lead sponsor
Med-El Corporation
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Dec 13, 2024
Start date
Nov 10, 2025
Primary completion
Apr 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 27, 2026

Study contacts

Katelyn Glassman, AuD
principal investigator · Med-El Corporation

Oversight

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

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

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