• Home
  • Practice Focus
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
    • How I Do It
    • TRIO Best Practices
  • Business of Medicine
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Practice Management
    • Tech Talk
    • AI
  • Literature Reviews
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Career
    • Medical Education
    • Professional Development
    • Resident Focus
  • ENT Perspectives
    • ENT Expressions
    • Everyday Ethics
    • From TRIO
    • The Great Debate
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Rx: Wellness
    • The Voice
    • Viewpoint
  • TRIO Resources
    • Triological Society
    • The Laryngoscope
    • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
    • TRIO Combined Sections Meetings
    • COSM
    • Related Otolaryngology Events
  • Search

Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score. Credit: Laryngoscope

January 19, 2017

Print-Friendly Version

Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score. Credit: Laryngoscope

You Might Also Like

No related posts.

Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score.
Credit: Laryngoscope

You Might Also Like:

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

Polls

Have you experienced an increase in in-office rhinology procedures in the last year?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive

Top Articles for Residents

  • A Letter to My Younger Self: Making Deliberate Changes Can Help Improve the Sense of Belonging
  • ENTtoday Welcomes Resident Editorial Board Members
  • Applications Open for Resident Members of ENTtoday Edit Board
  • How To Provide Helpful Feedback To Residents
  • Call for Resident Bowl Questions
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Empty Nose Syndrome: Physiological, Psychological, or Perhaps a Little of Both?

    • History of the Cochlear Implant

    • ChatGPT-Generated “Fake” References in Academic Manuscripts Is a Problem 

    • A Letter to My Younger Self: Making Deliberate Changes Can Help Improve the Sense of Belonging

    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment

    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?

    • Is Middle Ear Pressure Affected by Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Use?

    • Otolaryngologists Are Still Debating the Effectiveness of Tongue Tie Treatment

    • Keeping Watch for Skin Cancers on the Head and Neck

    • Questions on NIH Funding Leave ENT Researchers Pondering Next Steps and Leaving Everything Up in the Air
    • In-Office Rhinology Practices Continue to Grow
    • How Do We Define “Winning” in the OR?
    • A Letter to My Younger Self: Making Deliberate Changes Can Help Improve the Sense of Belonging
    • How To: Superior Maximization of Sphenoidotomy with Olfaction Preservation in Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery

Follow Us

  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • The Triological Society
  • The Laryngoscope
  • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookies

Wiley

Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1559-4939

Figure 1. Summary showing the pure-tone and MWRT threshold values that significantly correlated with meeting candidacy requirements upon cochlear implant evaluation. The percentile scores in the bottom row represent the number of patients in the study cohort testing at or below the audiometric measure thresholds shown who then qualified for cochlear implantation. For pure-tone measures, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence-level discrimination testing using AzBio in quiet conditions and assuming Medicare candidacy criteria (40% or worse on sentence level discrimination tests). For the MWRT, the threshold values were generated through correlation with sentence level discrimination testing regardless of the type of material used (AzBio in quiet, AzBio in noise, or HINT in quiet). CI = cochlear implant; HINT = Hearing in Noise Test; MWRT = monosyllabic word recognition test; WRS = word recognition score. Credit: Laryngoscope