Cargando…
Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users
PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation experience significant improvements in speech recognition with electric–acoustic stimulation (EAS) as compared to with a CI alone, although outcomes across EAS users vary. The individual differences in performance may be due in part...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36800505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00254 |
_version_ | 1785038393079496704 |
---|---|
author | Dillon, Margaret T. Canfarotta, Michael W. Buss, Emily Rooth, Meredith A. Richter, Margaret E. Overton, Andrea B. Roth, Noelle E. Dillon, Sarah M. Raymond, Jenna H. Young, Allison Pearson, Adrienne C. Davis, Amanda G. Dedmon, Matthew M. Brown, Kevin D. O'Connell, Brendan P. |
author_facet | Dillon, Margaret T. Canfarotta, Michael W. Buss, Emily Rooth, Meredith A. Richter, Margaret E. Overton, Andrea B. Roth, Noelle E. Dillon, Sarah M. Raymond, Jenna H. Young, Allison Pearson, Adrienne C. Davis, Amanda G. Dedmon, Matthew M. Brown, Kevin D. O'Connell, Brendan P. |
author_sort | Dillon, Margaret T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation experience significant improvements in speech recognition with electric–acoustic stimulation (EAS) as compared to with a CI alone, although outcomes across EAS users vary. The individual differences in performance may be due in part to default mapping procedures, which result in electric frequency-to-place mismatches for the majority of EAS users. This study assessed the influence of electric mismatches on the early speech recognition for EAS users. METHOD: Twenty-one participants were randomized at EAS activation to listen exclusively with a default or place-based map. For both groups, the unaided thresholds determined the acoustic cutoff frequency (i.e., > 65 dB HL). For default maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid spectral gaps in frequency information but created varying magnitudes of mismatches. For place-based maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid frequency-to-place mismatches. Recognition of consonant–nucleus–consonant words and vowels was assessed at activation and 1, 3, and 6 months postactivation. RESULTS: For participants with default maps, electric mismatch at 1500 Hz ranged from 2 to −12.0 semitones (Mdn = −5 semitones). Poorer performance was observed for those with larger magnitudes of electric mismatch. This effect was observed through 6 months of EAS listening experience. CONCLUSIONS: The present sample of EAS users experienced better initial performance when electric mismatches were small or eliminated. These data suggest the utility of methods that reduce electric mismatches, such as place-based mapping procedures. Investigation is ongoing to determine whether these differences persist with long-term EAS use. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096523 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10166189 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | American Speech-Language-Hearing Association |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101661892023-09-01 Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users Dillon, Margaret T. Canfarotta, Michael W. Buss, Emily Rooth, Meredith A. Richter, Margaret E. Overton, Andrea B. Roth, Noelle E. Dillon, Sarah M. Raymond, Jenna H. Young, Allison Pearson, Adrienne C. Davis, Amanda G. Dedmon, Matthew M. Brown, Kevin D. O'Connell, Brendan P. Am J Audiol Research Notes PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation experience significant improvements in speech recognition with electric–acoustic stimulation (EAS) as compared to with a CI alone, although outcomes across EAS users vary. The individual differences in performance may be due in part to default mapping procedures, which result in electric frequency-to-place mismatches for the majority of EAS users. This study assessed the influence of electric mismatches on the early speech recognition for EAS users. METHOD: Twenty-one participants were randomized at EAS activation to listen exclusively with a default or place-based map. For both groups, the unaided thresholds determined the acoustic cutoff frequency (i.e., > 65 dB HL). For default maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid spectral gaps in frequency information but created varying magnitudes of mismatches. For place-based maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid frequency-to-place mismatches. Recognition of consonant–nucleus–consonant words and vowels was assessed at activation and 1, 3, and 6 months postactivation. RESULTS: For participants with default maps, electric mismatch at 1500 Hz ranged from 2 to −12.0 semitones (Mdn = −5 semitones). Poorer performance was observed for those with larger magnitudes of electric mismatch. This effect was observed through 6 months of EAS listening experience. CONCLUSIONS: The present sample of EAS users experienced better initial performance when electric mismatches were small or eliminated. These data suggest the utility of methods that reduce electric mismatches, such as place-based mapping procedures. Investigation is ongoing to determine whether these differences persist with long-term EAS use. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096523 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2023-03 2023-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10166189/ /pubmed/36800505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00254 Text en Copyright © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Notes Dillon, Margaret T. Canfarotta, Michael W. Buss, Emily Rooth, Meredith A. Richter, Margaret E. Overton, Andrea B. Roth, Noelle E. Dillon, Sarah M. Raymond, Jenna H. Young, Allison Pearson, Adrienne C. Davis, Amanda G. Dedmon, Matthew M. Brown, Kevin D. O'Connell, Brendan P. Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title | Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title_full | Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title_fullStr | Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title_short | Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric–Acoustic Stimulation Users |
title_sort | influence of electric frequency-to-place mismatches on the early speech recognition outcomes for electric–acoustic stimulation users |
topic | Research Notes |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10166189/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36800505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00254 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dillonmargarett influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT canfarottamichaelw influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT bussemily influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT roothmereditha influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT richtermargarete influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT overtonandreab influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT rothnoellee influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT dillonsarahm influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT raymondjennah influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT youngallison influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT pearsonadriennec influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT davisamandag influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT dedmonmatthewm influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT brownkevind influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers AT oconnellbrendanp influenceofelectricfrequencytoplacemismatchesontheearlyspeechrecognitionoutcomesforelectricacousticstimulationusers |