Proefschrift_vd_Beek

583

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

52 | Chapter 3 contain patients with fness, ranging from a an 40 yrs (Table 1). 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

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. 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.