{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020518358531317494, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0183585313174946, 'mean_word_length': 5.393103448275862, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of round-window and transtympanic promontory electric stimulation in cochlear implant candidates.

We compared within-subjects electrical thresholds and dynamic ranges obtained with direct round-window and transtympanic promontory stimulation carried out preoperatively in 12 patients who were candidates for a cochlear implant. Square waves with frequencies of 50, 100, 200, and 400 Hz were delivered in a 50% duty cycle to both sites in each patient. With the exception of threshold at 50 Hz (promontory thresholds were lower than round-window thresholds), there were no statistically significant differences for either thresholds or dynamic ranges between the two sites of stimulation. There was a general trend for round-window thresholds to be lower and dynamic ranges larger, especially for the higher frequencies of stimulation. Mean threshold slopes for the two sites of stimulation were nearly identical.