Hear the Difference
Is every cochlear implant the same? Don’t they all sound the same?
The simple answer: No.
Only MED-EL cochlear implants are powered by Triformance to enable a more natural sound quality that no other cochlear implant can match.1,2,3,4
“Immediately after switch on [of MED-EL implant], music had more oomph. Immediate impact that I never got with my Cochlear, even when it was fully functional. It sounds clearer and crisper, more melodic. Can enjoy hearing more sounds, and instruments that were not there before. Still improving with MED-EL.”
— Recipient with a MED-EL implant in one ear and a Cochlear brand implant in the other ear 2
You’re choosing a cochlear implant to hear—so why not choose the closest to natural hearing?
By using Triformance technology to send more natural sound signals to your whole cochlea, our cochlear implants can provide the closest to natural hearing possible with a cochlear implant.1,2,3,4,8,9 And more natural hearing isn’t just about enjoying the sound from your implant—it’s about hearing better.5,6
What are the benefits to more natural hearing with MED-EL?
Better Hearing Quickly
Learning to hear with any cochlear implant takes patience and dedication—but with MED-EL, recipients can appreciate much better hearing in the first few months.5,7 Of course, we also have a comprehensive support program to help you make the most of your new hearing.
Better Hearing in Quiet & Background Noise
Whether you’re relaxing at home or out to dinner with friends, we’ve got you covered. Our cochlear implants are designed for better hearing in everyday life—even in noisy settings like busy restaurants, so you don’t have to rely on bulky accessories like remote microphones.3,5,6
And with hands-free control that automatically adapts, you don’t have to worry about changing settings or switching programs.
More Natural Sound Quality
In an interesting study, recipients had a different brand in one ear and later received a MED-EL implant for the other ear.2 Even though they had less experience with the MED-EL implant, most recipients rated the sound quality of MED-EL as more natural than their other brand of implant. Recipients said “vocals [are] much more clear and resonant” and that MED-EL offered “deeper, more resonant, more natural sound”.2
How did recipients describe their other brand of implant? “More mechanical and tinny.” and “More robotic, tinny and echoey. Cannot differentiate different individuals’ voices as well because more metallic sound. Sounds like a distorted microphone.”
- “More natural sound”
- “More melodic”
- “More resonant”
- “More robotic”
- “More metallic sound”
- “More mechanical”
Descriptions from recipients comparing their two different implants.2
More Enjoyable Music
If you can enjoy listening to music, you’ve reached a whole new level of hearing. Every person has different hearing abilities, but in a study of music enjoyment, more than 90% of MED-EL recipients reported that music sounds pleasant through their cochlear implant.2,8,9,10
- Rader, T., Döge, J., Adel, Y., Weissgerber, T., & Baumann, U. (2016). Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness. Hear Res., 339, 94–103. - MED-EL cochlear implants are not FDA approved for SSD
- Harris, R.L., Gibson, W.P. Johnson, M., Brew, J., Bray, M., & Psarros, C. (2011) Intra-individual assessment of speech and music perception in cochlear implant users with contralateral Cochlear and MED-EL systems. Acta Otolaryngol., 131(12), 1270–1278.
- Vermeire, K., Landsberger, D.M., Van de Heyning, P., Voormolen, M., Kleine Punte, A., Schatzer, R., & Zierhofer, C.(2015) Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time. Hear Res., 326, 8–14.
- Schatzer, R., Vermeire, K., Visser, D., Krenmayr, A., Kals, M., Voormolen, M., Van de Heyning, P., & Zierhofer, C. (2014) Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch. Hear Res., 309, 26–35 - MED-EL cochlear implants are not FDA approved for SSD
- Buchman, C.A., Dillon, M.T., King, E.R., Adunka, M.C., Adunka, O.F., & Pillsbury, H.C. (2014). Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial. Otol Neurotol., 35(10), 1773–1779.
- Kleine Punte, A., De Bodt, M., & Van de Heyning, P. (2014) Long-term improvement of speech perception with the fine structure processing coding strategy in cochlear implants. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec., 76(1), 36–43.
- Helbig, S., Helbig, M., Leinung, M., Stöver, T., Baumann, U., & Rader, T. (2015). Hearing preservation and improved speech perception with a flexible 28-mm electrode. Otol Neurotol. 2015 Jan;36(1):34-42.
- Müller, J., Brill, S., Hagen, R., Moeltner, A., Brockmeier, S.J., Stark, T., Helbig, S., Maurer, J., Zahnert, T., Zierhofer, C., Nopp, P., & Anderson, I. (2012) Clinical trial results with the MED-EL fine structure processing coding strategy in experienced cochlear implant users. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 74(4),185–198.
- Roy, A.T., Carver, C., Jiradejvong, P., & Limb, C.J (2015) Musical sound quality in cochlear implant users: A comparison in bass frequency perception between Fine Structure Processing and High-Definition Continuous Interleaved Sampling strategies. Ear Hear. 36(5), 582–590.
- Roy, A.T., Penninger, R.T., Pearl, M.S., Wuerfel, W., Jiradejvong, P., Carver, C., Buechner, A., & Limb, C.J. (2016). Deeper cochlear implant electrode insertion angle improves detection of musical sound quality deterioration related to bass frequency removal. Otol Neurotol., 37(2), 146–151
* FSP is not indicated for prelingual children in the US.