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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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