54 / 162
52 | Chapter 3
Fig. 3.
Speech perception on monosyllabic (CVC) words in quiet of the positioner-group (P) and the nonpositioner-group (NP) plotted as
phoneme scores (A) and as word scores (B) as a function of time after hook-up. Word scores of the NP- group are shown for the NPs-group
and the NPd-group separately in C. Significant differences between speech per- ception scores of both groups are marked (*
p
< 0.05; **
p
< 0.01). The number of patients in the subgroups is shown in Table 3.
nput impedance seen
tact. EFIM measure-
he P-patients and 16
cochlear implant use.
a CT scan and EFIM
. Of the NP-patients,
after 1 or 2 mos were
he average scores for
sts in quiet for both
p. The data are dis-
. 3A), which is stan-
rd test, and are also
g. 3B) for a better
year of follow-up was
and the NP-group.
oth groups show an
speech tests, which
weeks after initial
e performance of the
he P-group, and at 3
in speech perception
0.05). Also at 1 yr
score significantly
% versus 83%,
p
e speech perception
the NPd-group only
etween both groups
e speech perception
pidly after implanta-
differences did not
(
p
0.1).
little differences be-
xcept for the age. As
ge of the P-group and
. However, in neither
ent at implantation
eech perception. This
re speech perception
nst age of the P- and
relations were found
0.002,
p
0.9). Both
contain patients with
fness, ranging from a
an 40 yrs (Table 1).
Fig. 3. Speech perception on monosyllabic (CVC) words in
quiet of the positioner-group (P) and the nonpositioner-group
(NP) plotted as phoneme scores (A) and as word scores (B) as
a function of time after hook-up. Word sc es of the NP-
group ar sh wn f r the NPs-group and the NPd-group
separately in C. Significant differences between speech per-
ception scores of both groups are marked (*
p
<
0.05; **
p
<
0.01). The number of patients in the subgroups is shown in
Table 3.
583