Objectives: The spatial position of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array affects the spectral cues provided to the recipient. Differences in cochlear size and array length lead to substantial variability in angular insertion depth (AID) across and within array types. For CI-alone users, the variability in AID results in varying degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch between the default electric frequency filters and cochlear place of stimulation. For electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users, default electric frequency filters also vary as a function of residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. The present study aimed to (1) investigate variability in AID associated with lateral wall arrays, (2) determine the subsequent frequency-to-place mismatch for CI-alone and EAS users mapped with default frequency filters, and (3) examine the relationship between early speech perception for CI-alone users and two aspects of electrode position: frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation between neighboring contacts, a metric associated with spectral selectivity at the periphery. Design: One hundred one adult CI recipients (111 ears) with MED-EL Flex24 (24 mm), Flex28 (28 mm), and FlexSOFT/Standard (31.5 mm) arrays underwent postoperative computed tomography to determine AID. A subsequent comparison was made between AID, predicted spiral ganglion place frequencies, and the default frequency filters for CI-alone (n = 84) and EAS users (n = 27). For CI-alone users with complete insertions who listened with maps fit with the default frequency filters (n = 48), frequency-to-place mismatch was quantified at 1500 Hz and angular separation between neighboring contacts was determined for electrodes in the 1 to 2 kHz region. Multiple linear regression was used to examine how frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation of contacts influence consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) scores through 6 months postactivation. Results: For CI recipients with complete insertions (n = 106, 95.5%), the AID (mean ± standard deviation) of the most apical contact was 428° ± 34.3° for Flex24 (n = 11), 558° ± 65.4° for Flex28 (n = 48), and 636° ± 42.9° for FlexSOFT/Standard (n = 47) arrays. For CI-alone users, default frequency filters aligned closely with the spiral ganglion map for deeply inserted lateral wall arrays. For EAS users, default frequency filters produced a range of mismatches; absolute deviations of ≤ 6 semitones occurred in only 37% of cases. Participants with shallow insertions and minimal or no residual hearing experienced the greatest mismatch. For CI-alone users, both smaller frequency-to-place mismatch and greater angular separation between contacts were associated with better CNC scores during the initial 6 months of device use. Conclusions: There is significant variability in frequency-to-place mismatch among CI-alone and EAS users with default frequency filters, even between individuals implanted with the same array. When using default frequency filters, mismatch can be minimized with longer lateral wall arrays and insertion depths that meet the edge frequency associated with residual hearing for CI-alone and EAS users, respectively. Smaller degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch and decreased peripheral masking due to more widely spaced contacts may independently support better speech perception with longer lateral wall arrays in CI-alone users.

Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the reliability of a new tablet-based software that utilizes postoperative computed tomography to determine angular insertion depth (AID), cochlear duct length (CDL), and the cochlear place frequency of individual electrodes in cochlear implant recipients. Patients: Twenty adult cochlear implant recipients with lateral-wall electrode arrays of varying lengths were included in the study. Intervention: Cochlear and electrode array measurements were made by 2 otolaryngologists using a tablet-based software. The user manually identifies the modiolus, round window, and each electrode contact to calculate AID. The user also manually identifies cochlear landmarks to calculate the CDL. The AID and CDL are applied to the Greenwood function to obtain an estimate of the cochlear place frequency for each electrode. Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary outcome measure was the reliability of the instrument, as assessed with intra and interrater reliability of measured AID and CDL. The resultant differences in the estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode were also evaluated. Results: A broad range of AIDs were observed (390°–659°). Intraclass correlation coefficients for intra (0.991) and interrater reliability (0.980) of AID of the most apical electrode contact were excellent. Intra (0.820) and interrater reliability (0.784) of CDL were also excellent. The estimated cochlear place frequency for the most apical electrode differed by an average of 6.7% (0–18.7%) across the 2 raters. Conclusion: There is excellent agreement amongst clinicians in the determination of AID and CDL, resulting in small changes in estimated cochlear place frequency of the most apical electrode using this new software.

A prospective clinical trial evaluated the effectiveness of cochlear implantation in adults with asymmetric hearing loss (AHL). Twenty subjects with mild-to-moderate hearing loss in the better ear and moderate-to-profound hearing loss in the poorer ear underwent cochlear implantation of the poorer hearing ear. Subjects were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-activation. Preoperative performance was evaluated unaided, with traditional hearing aids (HAs) or with a bone-conduction HA. Post-activation performance was evaluated with the cochlear implant (CI) alone or in combination with a contralateral HA (bimodal). Test measures included subjective benefit, word recognition, and spatial hearing (i.e., localization and masked sentence recognition). Significant subjective benefit was reported as early as the 1-month interval, indicating better performance with the CI compared with the preferred preoperative condition. Aided word recognition with the CI alone was significantly improved at the 1-month interval compared with preoperative performance with an HA and continued to improve through the 12-month interval. Subjects demonstrated early, significant improvements in the bimodal condition on the spatial hearing tasks compared with baseline preoperative performance tested unaided. The magnitude of the benefit was reduced for subjects with AHL when compared with published data on CI users with normal hearing in the contralateral ear; this finding may reflect significant differences in age at implantation and hearing sensitivity across cohorts.

Objectives: Electrocochleography (ECochG), obtained before the insertion of a cochlear implant (CI) array, provides a measure of residual cochlear function that accounts for a substantial portion of variability in postoperative speech perception outcomes in adults. It is postulated that subsequent surgical factors represent independent sources of variance in outcomes. Prior work has demonstrated a positive correlation between angular insertion depth (AID) of straight arrays and speech perception under the CI-alone condition, with an inverse relationship observed for precurved arrays. The purpose of the present study was to determine the combined effects of ECochG, AID, and array design on speech perception outcomes. Design: Participants were 50 postlingually deafened adult CI recipients who received one of three straight arrays (MED-EL Flex24, MED-EL Flex28, and MED-EL Standard) and two precurved arrays (Cochlear Contour Advance and Advanced Bionics HiFocus Mid-Scala). Residual cochlear function was determined by the intraoperative ECochG total response (TR) measured before array insertion, which is the sum of magnitudes of spectral components in response to tones of different stimulus frequencies across the speech spectrum. The AID was then determined with postoperative imaging. Multiple linear regression was used to predict consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition in the CI-alone condition at 6 months postactivation based on AID, TR, and array design. Results: Forty-one participants received a straight array and nine received a precurved array. The AID of the most apical electrode contact ranged from 341° to 696°. The TR measured by ECochG accounted for 43% of variance in speech perception outcomes (p < 0.001). A regression model predicting CNC word scores with the TR tended to underestimate the performance for precurved arrays and deeply inserted straight arrays, and to overestimate the performance for straight arrays with shallower insertions. When combined in a multivariate linear regression, the TR, AID, and array design accounted for 72% of variability in speech perception outcomes (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A model of speech perception outcomes that incorporates TR, AID, and array design represents an improvement over a model based on TR alone. The success of this model shows that peripheral factors including cochlear health and electrode placement may play a predominant role in speech perception with CIs.

Objectives: 1) To compare speech recognition outcomes between cochlear implant (CI) recipients of 28-and 31.5mm lateral wall electrode arrays, and 2) to characterize the relationship between angular insertion depth (AID) and speech recognition. Study Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Tertiary academic referral center. Patients: Seventy-five adult CI recipients of fully inserted 28-mm (n ¼ 28) or 31.5-mm (n ¼ 47) lateral wall arrays listening with a CI-alone device. Interventions: Cochlear implantation with postoperative computed tomography. Main Outcome Measures: Consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word recognition assessed with the CI-alone at 12 months postactivation. Results: The mean AID of the most apical electrode contact for the 31.5-mm array recipients was significantly deeper than the 28-mm array recipients (6288 vs 5718, p < 0.001). Following 12 months of listening experience, mean CNC word scores were significantly better for recipients of 31.5mm arrays compared with those implanted with 28-mm arrays (59.5% vs 48.3%, p ¼ 0.004; Cohen's d ¼ 0.70; 95% CI [0.22, 1.18]). There was a significant positive correlation between AID and CNC word scores (r ¼ 0.372, p ¼ 0.001), with a plateau in performance observed around 6008. Conclusions: Cochlear implant recipients implanted with a 31.5-mm array experienced better speech recognition than those with a 28-mm array at 12 months postactivation. Deeper insertion of a lateral wall array appears to confer speech recognition benefit up to $6008, with a plateau in performance observed thereafter. These data provide preliminary evidence of the insertion depth necessary to optimize speech recognition outcomes for lateral wall electrode arrays among CI-alone users.

Objectives/Hypothesis: Results from a prospective trial demonstrated better speech recognition for cochlear implant (CI) recipients implanted with a long lateral wall electrode array compared to subjects with a short array after 1 year of listening experience. As short array recipients may require an extended adaptation period, this study investigated whether differences in speech recognition continued through 4 years of CI use. Study Design: Long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Methods: Subjects were randomized to receive a MED-EL medium (24 mm) or standard (31.5 mm) array. Linear mixed models compared speech recognition between cohorts with word recognition in quiet and sentence recognition in noise at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 months postactivation. Postoperative imaging and electric frequency filters were reviewed to assess the influence of frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation between neighboring contacts, a metric associated with peripheral spectral selectivity. Results: Long (31.5 mm) array recipients demonstrated superior speech recognition out to 4 years postactivation. There was a significant effect of angular separation between contacts, with more closely spaced contacts associated with poorer speech recognition. There was no significant effect of mismatch, yet this may have been obscured by changes in frequency filters over time. Conclusions: Conventional MED-EL CI recipients implanted with 31.5-mm arrays experience better speech recognition than 24-mm array recipients, initially and with long-term listening experience. The benefit conferred by longer arrays in the present cohort can be partially attributed to more widely spaced electrode contacts, presumably a result of reduced channel interaction.

Background: The default mapping procedure for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) devices uses the cochlear implant recipient's unaided detection thresholds in the implanted ear to derive the acoustic settings and assign the lowest frequency filter of electric stimulation. Individual differences for speech recognition with EAS may be due to discrepancies between the electric frequency filters of individual electrode contacts and the cochlear place of stimulation, known as a frequency-to-place mismatch. Frequency-to-place mismatch of greater than 1/2 octave has been demonstrated in up to 60% of EAS users. Aligning the electric frequency filters via a place-based mapping procedure using postoperative imaging may improve speech recognition with EAS. Methods: Masked sentence recognition was evaluated for normal-hearing subjects (n = 17) listening with vocoder simulations of EAS, using a place-based map and a default map. Simulation parameters were based on audiometric and imaging data from a representative 24-mm electrode array recipient and EAS user. The place-based map aligned electric frequency filters with the cochlear place frequency, which introduced a gap between the simulated acoustic and electric output. The default map settings were derived from the clinical programming software and provided the full speech frequency range. Results: Masked sentence recognition was significantly better for simulated EAS with the place-based map as compared with the default map. Conclusion: The simulated EAS place-based map supported better performance than the simulated EAS default map. This indicates that individualizing maps may improve performance in EAS users by helping them achieve better asymptotic performance earlier and mitigate the need for acclimatization.

No abstract