Cargando…

Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate variable speech recognition when listening with a CI-alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device, which may be due in part to electric frequency-to-place mismatches created by the default mapping procedures. Performance may be improved if...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dillon, Margaret T., O'Connell, Brendan P., Canfarotta, Michael W., Buss, Emily, Hopfinger, Joseph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35394798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00123
_version_ 1784800578396749824
author Dillon, Margaret T.
O'Connell, Brendan P.
Canfarotta, Michael W.
Buss, Emily
Hopfinger, Joseph
author_facet Dillon, Margaret T.
O'Connell, Brendan P.
Canfarotta, Michael W.
Buss, Emily
Hopfinger, Joseph
author_sort Dillon, Margaret T.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate variable speech recognition when listening with a CI-alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device, which may be due in part to electric frequency-to-place mismatches created by the default mapping procedures. Performance may be improved if the filter frequencies are aligned with the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based mapping. Performance with default maps versus an experimental place-based map was compared for participants with normal hearing when listening to CI-alone or EAS simulations to observe potential outcomes prior to initiating an investigation with CI recipients. METHOD: A noise vocoder simulated CI-alone and EAS devices, mapped with default or place-based procedures. The simulations were based on an actual 24-mm electrode array recipient, whose insertion angles for each electrode contact were used to estimate the respective cochlear place frequency. The default maps used the filter frequencies assigned by the clinical software. The filter frequencies for the place-based maps aligned with the cochlear place frequencies for individual contacts in the low- to mid-frequency cochlear region. For the EAS simulations, low-frequency acoustic information was filtered to simulate aided low-frequency audibility. Performance was evaluated for the AzBio sentences presented in a 10-talker masker at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), +10 dB SNR, and asymptote. RESULTS: Performance was better with the place-based maps as compared with the default maps for both CI-alone and EAS simulations. For instance, median performance at +10 dB SNR for the CI-alone simulation was 57% correct for the place-based map and 20% for the default map. For the EAS simulation, those values were 59% and 37% correct. Adding acoustic low-frequency information resulted in a similar benefit for both maps. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing frequency-to-place mismatches, such as with the experimental place-based mapping procedure, produces a greater benefit in speech recognition than maximizing bandwidth for CI-alone and EAS simulations. Ongoing work is evaluating the initial and long-term performance benefits in CI-alone and EAS users. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529053
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9524846
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95248462022-12-01 Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Dillon, Margaret T. O'Connell, Brendan P. Canfarotta, Michael W. Buss, Emily Hopfinger, Joseph Am J Audiol Research Articles PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate variable speech recognition when listening with a CI-alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device, which may be due in part to electric frequency-to-place mismatches created by the default mapping procedures. Performance may be improved if the filter frequencies are aligned with the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based mapping. Performance with default maps versus an experimental place-based map was compared for participants with normal hearing when listening to CI-alone or EAS simulations to observe potential outcomes prior to initiating an investigation with CI recipients. METHOD: A noise vocoder simulated CI-alone and EAS devices, mapped with default or place-based procedures. The simulations were based on an actual 24-mm electrode array recipient, whose insertion angles for each electrode contact were used to estimate the respective cochlear place frequency. The default maps used the filter frequencies assigned by the clinical software. The filter frequencies for the place-based maps aligned with the cochlear place frequencies for individual contacts in the low- to mid-frequency cochlear region. For the EAS simulations, low-frequency acoustic information was filtered to simulate aided low-frequency audibility. Performance was evaluated for the AzBio sentences presented in a 10-talker masker at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), +10 dB SNR, and asymptote. RESULTS: Performance was better with the place-based maps as compared with the default maps for both CI-alone and EAS simulations. For instance, median performance at +10 dB SNR for the CI-alone simulation was 57% correct for the place-based map and 20% for the default map. For the EAS simulation, those values were 59% and 37% correct. Adding acoustic low-frequency information resulted in a similar benefit for both maps. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing frequency-to-place mismatches, such as with the experimental place-based mapping procedure, produces a greater benefit in speech recognition than maximizing bandwidth for CI-alone and EAS simulations. Ongoing work is evaluating the initial and long-term performance benefits in CI-alone and EAS users. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529053 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2022-06 2022-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9524846/ /pubmed/35394798 http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00123 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research Articles
Dillon, Margaret T.
O'Connell, Brendan P.
Canfarotta, Michael W.
Buss, Emily
Hopfinger, Joseph
Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title_full Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title_fullStr Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title_full_unstemmed Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title_short Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation
title_sort effect of place-based versus default mapping procedures on masked speech recognition: simulations of cochlear implant alone and electric-acoustic stimulation
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9524846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35394798
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00123
work_keys_str_mv AT dillonmargarett effectofplacebasedversusdefaultmappingproceduresonmaskedspeechrecognitionsimulationsofcochlearimplantaloneandelectricacousticstimulation
AT oconnellbrendanp effectofplacebasedversusdefaultmappingproceduresonmaskedspeechrecognitionsimulationsofcochlearimplantaloneandelectricacousticstimulation
AT canfarottamichaelw effectofplacebasedversusdefaultmappingproceduresonmaskedspeechrecognitionsimulationsofcochlearimplantaloneandelectricacousticstimulation
AT bussemily effectofplacebasedversusdefaultmappingproceduresonmaskedspeechrecognitionsimulationsofcochlearimplantaloneandelectricacousticstimulation
AT hopfingerjoseph effectofplacebasedversusdefaultmappingproceduresonmaskedspeechrecognitionsimulationsofcochlearimplantaloneandelectricacousticstimulation