Preferred Name

Leanne Browning

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Date of Graduation

Spring 2019

Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Audiology (AuD)


Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders


Yingjiu Nie

Ayaskanta Rout


Cochlear implants have become a viable option for those with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss who gain little benefit from hearing aids and have poor word recognition ability. However, the techniques audiologists use to program these devices are not standardized (Sorkin, 2013). There is little data available which analyzes how audiologists handle clinical cochlear implant programming between the top manufacturers. These companies supply default settings in their products but is it unknown how often audiologists use these in practice in the United States.

In the present study, a questionnaire based on previous European data from Vaerenberg et al. (2014) was designed to address which settings professionals are using with their patients, how they approach bimodal fitting with a cochlear implant and a hearing aid, and which tests they use to evaluate patient and device performance. This questionnaire was distributed through the platform, Qualtrics, to cochlear implant audiologists throughout the United States by email. 47 responses were recorded with a response rate of 70%.

Results indicate a preference for the default value for some parameters, like default pulse width, but not others. Additionally, there are differences between manufacturers, including in the use of default strategy. Relative to Cochlear, there is a trend toward less use of default strategy for MED-EL and especially Advanced Bionics. Preferences for bimodal fitting techniques trend toward using a partner company’s hearing aid, like Cochlear and ReSound. There is no significant correlation between number of implants activated and preference for default.

New and experienced audiologists may benefit from this research in that they may better understand the state of the art of cochlear implant programming. It is clear that there is much variability among audiologists’ cochlear implant programming practices, and documenting these differences is important for the betterment of the field.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.