Anatomy-based fitting improves speech perception in noise for cochlear implant recipients with single-sided deafness.
Anatomy-based fitting
Cochlear implant in single sided deafness
Frequency-to-place mismatch
Speech perception
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Sep 2024
19 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
19
03
2024
accepted:
10
09
2024
medline:
20
9
2024
pubmed:
20
9
2024
entrez:
19
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To evaluate objective and subjective hearing outcomes in experienced cochlear implant users with single sided deafness (SSD CI) who used fitting maps created via anatomy-based fitting (ABF) and clinically-based fitting (CBF). Twelve SSD CI users with postlingual hearing loss. OTOPLAN (Version 3. (MED-EL) was used to determine intracochlear electrode contact positions using post-operative high-resolution flat panel volume computed tomography. From these positions, the corresponding center frequencies and bandwidths were derived for each channel. These were implemented in the clinical fitting software MAESTRO to yield an ABF map individualized to each user. ABF and CBF maps were compared. Objective speech perception in quiet and in noise, binaural effects, and self-perceived sound quality were evaluated. Significantly higher speech perception in noise scores were observed with the ABF map compared to the CBF map (mean SRT Experienced SSD CI users preferred using the ABF map, which gave them significant improvements in binaural hearing and some aspects of speech perception.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39299967
doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08984-4
pii: 10.1007/s00405-024-08984-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Van De Heyning P et al (2017) Towards a Unified Testing Framework for single-sided deafness studies: a Consensus Paper. Audiol Neurotology 21(6):391–398. https://doi.org/10.1159/000455058
doi: 10.1159/000455058
Lindquist NR et al (2023) Sep., Cochlear Implants for Single-Sided Deafness: Quality of Life, Daily Usage, and Duration of Deafness, Laryngoscope, vol. 133, no. 9, pp. 2362–2370, https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.30452
Kurz A, Zanzinger M, Hagen R, Rak K (2021) The impact of cochlear implant microphone settings on the binaural hearing of experienced cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 278, no. 6, pp. 2067–2077, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06450-5
Kurz A, Rak K, Hagen R, Ehrmann-Müller D (2020) Evaluating the decision for Cochlear Implantation in individuals with single-sided deafness (SSD); implementing the SSD Consensus Protocol into Clinical Routine. Otology Neurotology 41(6):727–735. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002618
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002618
pubmed: 32068694
Távora-Vieira D, Rajan GP, Van De Heyning P, Mertens G (2019) Evaluating the long-term hearing outcomes of Cochlear Implant users with single-sided deafness. Otology Neurotology 40(6):E575–E580. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002235
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002235
pubmed: 31135665
Mertens G, Kleine Punte A, De Bodt M, Van De Heyning P (2015) Binaural auditory outcomes in patients with postlingual profound unilateral hearing loss: 3 years after cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurotology 20:67–72. https://doi.org/10.1159/000380751
doi: 10.1159/000380751
Speck I et al (2021) Is the cochlear implant a successful long-term solution for single-sided deaf and asymmetric hearing-impaired patients? European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 278, no. 9, pp. 3257–3265, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06411-y
Távora-Vieira D, Marino R, Acharya A, Rajan GP (2015) The impact of Cochlear Implantation on Speech understanding, subjective hearing performance, and Tinnitus Perception in patients with unilateral severe to Profound hearing loss. Otology Neurotology 36:430–436
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000707
pubmed: 25594387
Tavora-Vieira D, De Ceulaer G, Govaerts PJ, Rajan GP (2015) Cochlear implantation improves localization ability in patients with unilateral deafness. Ear Hear 36(3):e93–e98. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000130
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000130
pubmed: 25474416
Mertens G, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P Evaluation of Long-Term Cochlear Implant Use in Subjects With Acquired Unilateral Profound Hearing Loss: Focus on Binaural Auditory Outcomes, Ear Hear. Accessed: Dec. 21, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27513880
Jürgens T, Wesarg T, Oetting D, Jung L, Williges B (2023) Spatial speech-in-noise performance in simulated single-sided deaf and bimodal cochlear implant users in comparison with real patients, Int J Audiol, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 30–43, Jan. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2021.2015633
Tóth TF, Németh A, Bakó P, Révész P, Gerlinger I, Szanyi I (2023) Matching the pitch perception of the cochlear implanted ear with the contralateral ear in patients with single-sided deafness: a novel approach, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 280, no. 11, pp. 4851–4859, Nov. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08002-z
Aronoff JM, Padilla M, Stelmach J, Landsberger DM (2016) Clinically paired electrodes are often not perceived as Pitch Matched. Trends Hear 20(0):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2331216516668302
doi: 10.1177/2331216516668302
Bernstein JGW et al (2021) Interaural Place-of-stimulation mismatch estimates using CT scans and Binaural Perception, but not Pitch, are consistent in Cochlear-Implant users. J Neurosci 41(49):10161–10178. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0359-21.2021
doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0359-21.2021
pubmed: 34725189
pmcid: 8660045
Dillon MT, Buss E, Rooth MA, King ER, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD (2019) Low-frequency pitch perception in cochlear implant recipients with normal hearing in the contralateral ear. J Speech 62(8):2860–2871. Language, and Hearing Research10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-18-0409
doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-18-0409
Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland JT, Svirsky M (2015) The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in Cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36(5):e207–e213. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163
pubmed: 25860624
pmcid: 4549170
Peters JPM, Bennink E, Van Zanten GA (2019) Comparison of place-versus-pitch mismatch between a perimodiolar and lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode array in patients with single-sided deafness and a Cochlear Implant. Audiol Neurotology 24(1):38–48. https://doi.org/10.1159/000499154
doi: 10.1159/000499154
Peters JPM, Bennink E, Grolman W, van Zanten GA (2016) Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant: Is there a need for adjustment of the default frequency allocation tables? Hear Res, vol. 342, pp. 124–133, Dec. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2016.10.009
Dillon MT, Canfarotta MW, Buss E, O’Connell BP (2021) Comparison of Speech Recognition with an organ of Corti Versus spiral ganglion frequency-to-place function in place-based mapping of Cochlear Implant and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation devices. Otol Neurotol 42(5):721–725. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003070
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003070
pubmed: 33625196
pmcid: 8935664
Mertens G, Van de Heyning P, Vanderveken O, Topsakal V, Van Rompaey V (2022) The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients? European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 279, no. 4, pp. 1875–1883, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06899-y
Canfarotta MW, Dillon MT, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, O’Connell BP (2020) Frequency-To-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients, vol. 41, no. 5. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000864
Canfarotta MW, O’Connell BP, Buss E, Pillsbury HC, Brown KD, Dillon MT (2020) Influence of age at Cochlear Implantation and frequency-to-place mismatch on early Speech Recognition in adults. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States) 162(6):926–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599820911707
doi: 10.1177/0194599820911707
Kurz A, Herrmann D, Hagen R, Rak K (Jul. 2023) Using anatomy-based fitting to reduce frequency-to-place mismatch in experienced bilateral Cochlear Implant users: a Promising Concept. J Pers Med 13(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071109
Kurz A, Müller-Graff F-T, Hagen R, Rak K (2022) One Click Is Not Enough: Anatomy-Based Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users, Otology & Neurotology, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1176–1180, Dec. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003731
Schendzielorz P et al (2021) Precise evaluation of the Cochlear Duct length by flat-panel volume computed tomography (fpVCT)-Implication of secondary reconstructions. Otol Neurotol 42(3):e294–e303. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000002951
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000002951
pubmed: 33555750
Schurzig D et al (2018) A Novel Method for Clinical Cochlear Duct length estimation toward patient-specific Cochlear Implant Selection. OTO Open 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2473974X18800238
Greenwood DD (1990) A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87:2592–2605. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.399052
doi: 10.1121/1.399052
pubmed: 2373794
Di Maro F, Carner M, Sacchetto A, Soloperto D, Marchioni D (2022) Frequency reallocation based on cochlear place frequencies in cochlear implants: a pilot study, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, vol. 279, no. 10, pp. 4719–4725, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-07245-y
Steffens T (2015) Der Freiburger Sprachtest: ein Klassiker Mit Stärken Und Schwächen. HNO Nachr 45(4):22–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00060-015-0370-9
doi: 10.1007/s00060-015-0370-9
Hey M, Hocke T, Hedderich J, Müller-Deile J (2014) Investigation of a matrix sentence test in noise: reproducibility and discrimination function in cochlear implant patients. Int J Audiol 53(12):895–902. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.938368
doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.938368
pubmed: 25140602
Amann E, Anderson I (2014) Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19). Acta Otolaryngol 134(9):915–923. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016489.2014.909604
doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.909604
pubmed: 24975453
Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA (2007) Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: Implications for cochlear implants, JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 220–233, Jun. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-007-0076-9