Influence of the Frequency-to-Place Function on Recognition with Place-Based Cochlear Implant Maps

Comparison of acute speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) alone and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users listening with default maps or place-based maps using either a spiral ganglion (SG) or a new Synchrotron Radiation-Artificial Intelligence (SR-AI) frequency-to-place function. Thirtee...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Laryngoscope 2023-12, Vol.133 (12), p.3540-3547
Main Authors: Dillon, Margaret T, Helpard, Luke, Brown, Kevin D, Selleck, A Morgan, Richter, Margaret E, Rooth, Meredith A, Thompson, Nicholas J, Dedmon, Matthew M, Ladak, Hanif M, Agrawal, Sumit
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acoustic Stimulation - methods
Adult
Artificial Intelligence
Cochlea - anatomy & histology
Cochlear Implantation
Cochlear Implants
Humans
Speech Perception
Voice recognition
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Comparison of acute speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) alone and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users listening with default maps or place-based maps using either a spiral ganglion (SG) or a new Synchrotron Radiation-Artificial Intelligence (SR-AI) frequency-to-place function. Thirteen adult CI-alone or EAS users completed a task of speech recognition at initial device activation with maps that differed in the electric filter frequency assignments. The three map conditions were: (1) maps with the default filter settings (default map), (2) place-based maps with filters aligned to cochlear SG tonotopicity using the SG function (SG place-based map), and (3) place-based maps with filters aligned to cochlear Organ of Corti (OC) tonotopicity using the SR-AI function (SR-AI place-based map). Speech recognition was evaluated using a vowel recognition task. Performance was scored as the percent correct for formant 1 recognition due to the rationale that the maps would deviate the most in the estimated cochlear place frequency for low frequencies. On average, participants had better performance with the OC SR-AI place-based map as compared to the SG place-based map and the default map. A larger performance benefit was observed for EAS users than for CI-alone users. These pilot data suggest that EAS and CI-alone users may experience better performance with a patient-centered mapping approach that accounts for the variability in cochlear morphology (OC SR-AI frequency-to-place function) in the individualization of the electric filter frequencies (place-based mapping procedure). 3 Laryngoscope, 133:3540-3547, 2023.
ISSN:0023-852X
1531-4995
DOI:10.1002/lary.30710