Department of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Department of Allied Health Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Am J Audiol. 2022 Jun 2;31(2):322-337. doi: 10.1044/2022_AJA-21-00123. Epub 2022 Apr 8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
人工耳蜗(CI)植入者在使用 CI 单独或电声刺激(EAS)设备聆听时,言语识别能力存在差异,这可能部分归因于默认映射程序导致的电频率与位置不匹配。如果滤波器频率与耳蜗位置频率匹配,即基于位置的映射,则可以提高性能。本研究将比较正常听力参与者在使用 CI 单独或 EAS 模拟时,默认映射与实验性基于位置的映射的性能,以在开始对 CI 植入者进行研究之前观察潜在结果。
噪声声码器模拟 CI 单独和 EAS 设备,采用默认或基于位置的程序进行映射。这些模拟基于实际的 24-mm 电极阵列受者,其每个电极接触的插入角度用于估计相应的耳蜗位置频率。默认映射使用临床软件分配的滤波器频率。基于位置的映射的滤波器频率与低频到中频耳蜗区域中各个接触点的耳蜗位置频率匹配。对于 EAS 模拟,低频声信息经过滤波以模拟辅助低频可听度。在+5 dB 信噪比(SNR)、+10 dB SNR 和渐近线处,评估了在 10 位说话者掩蔽器中呈现的 AzBio 句子的性能。
与默认映射相比,基于位置的映射在 CI 单独和 EAS 模拟中均提高了性能。例如,在 CI 单独模拟中,+10 dB SNR 时的中位数性能,基于位置的映射为 57%正确,默认映射为 20%正确。对于 EAS 模拟,这两个值分别为 59%和 37%正确。对于这两种映射,添加低频声信息都产生了类似的益处。
与最大化 CI 单独和 EAS 模拟的带宽相比,减少频率与位置不匹配(例如,通过实验性基于位置的映射程序)可在言语识别方面带来更大的益处。正在进行的工作评估了 CI 单独和 EAS 用户的初始和长期性能益处。