Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different mapping procedures based on anatomic or default frequency distribution in postlingual deafness adults who underwent cochlear implantation (CI).

Methods

Forty-eight adults with postlingual deafness who underwent CI (MED-EL) from January 2021 to May 2022 in our hospital were prospectively recruited. The participants were randomly assigned to two groups (the anatomic group and the default group). Postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scans were evaluated with Otoplan® to determine the angular insertion depth (AID) and the specific locations of the intracochlear electrodes. Anatomic maps were imported into MAESTRO 9.0 software (MED-EL) for anatomy-based fitting for anatomic group, while default mapping program was set up for the default group. Hearing thresholds, Speech Recognition Scores (SRS), and subjects’ auditory and musical abilities were evaluated 1 year after using the CI. Differences were determined in two groups using Stata statistical software, with significance defined as p < 0.05.

Results

SRS under noisy conditions was significantly greater for anatomic group than the default group (p = 0.02). Under quiet conditions, however, mean hearing thresholds (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) and SRS did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.07). Modified questionnaires showed that auditory (p = 0.02) and musical (p = 0.01) quality were significantly better following the anatomic mapping than the default procedure.

Conclusion

CI program based on the anatomic distribution may bring better SRS under noise conditions as well as better auditory and musical qualities than based on the default frequency distribution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

All data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Heutink F et al (2019) Angular electrode insertion depth and speech perception in adults with a cochlear implant: a systematic review. Otol Neurotol 40(7):900–910

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Khan MMR, Labadie RF, Noble JH (2020) Preoperative prediction of angular insertion depth of lateral wall cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 7(3):031504

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Canfarotta MW et al (2020) Frequency-to-place mismatch: characterizing variability and the influence on speech perception outcomes in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 41(5):1349–1361

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dutrieux N et al (2022) Correlation between cochlear length, insertion angle, and tonotopic mismatch for MED-EL FLEX28 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 43(1):48–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mertens G et al (2022) The smaller the frequency-to-place mismatch the better the hearing outcomes in cochlear implant recipients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279(4):1875–1883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Abrahamse R, Beynon A, Piai V (2021) Long-term auditory processing outcomes in early implanted young adults with cochlear implants: the mismatch negativity vs. P300 response. Clin Neurophysiol 132(1):258–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Landsberger DM et al (2015) The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36(5):e207–e213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wess JM, Brungart DS, Bernstein JGW (2017) The effect of interaural mismatches on contralateral unmasking with single-sided vocoders. Ear Hear 38(3):374–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooperman SP et al (2022) Influence of electrode to cochlear duct length ratio on post-operative speech understanding outcomes. Cochlear Implants Int 23(2):59–69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Khurayzi T, Almuhawas F, Sanosi A (2020) Direct measurement of cochlear parameters for automatic calculation of the cochlear duct length. Ann Saudi Med 40(3):212–218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Di Maro F et al (2022) Frequency reallocation based on cochlear place frequencies in cochlear implants: a pilot study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279(10):4719–4725

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Xi X et al (2010) Development and evaluation of standardized Mandarin monosyllable audiometric materials. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 45(1):7–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Amann E, Anderson I (2014) Development and validation of a questionnaire for hearing implant users to self-assess their auditory abilities in everyday communication situations: the Hearing Implant Sound Quality Index (HISQUI19). Acta Otolaryngol 134(9):915–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Duret S et al (2021) Participation of acoustic and electric hearing in perceiving musical sounds. Front Neurosci 15:558421

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhou Q, Gu X, Liu B (2019) The music quality feeling and music perception of adult cochlear implant recipients. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 33(1):47–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Neves CA et al (2022) Fully automated measurement of cochlear duct length from clinical temporal bone computed tomography. Laryngoscope 132(2):449–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Alshalan A, et al (2022) Cochlear implantation: the variation in cochlear height. Ear Nose Throat J, p 1455613221134860

  18. Xu K et al (2020) Effects of spectral resolution and frequency mismatch on speech understanding and spatial release from masking in simulated bilateral cochlear implants. Ear Hear 41(5):1362–1371

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Canfarotta MW et al (2020) Influence of age at cochlear implantation and frequency-to-place mismatch on early speech recognition in adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 162(6):926–932

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. He S et al (2023) Relationships Between the Auditory Nerve Sensitivity to Amplitude Modulation, Perceptual Amplitude Modulation Rate Discrimination Sensitivity, and Speech Perception Performance in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Ear Hear 44:371–384

  22. Spiegel JL et al (2022) Variation of the cochlear anatomy and cochlea duct length: analysis with a new tablet-based software. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279(4):1851–1861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Jong MAM et al (2020) Effectiveness of phantom stimulation in shifting the pitch percept in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 41(5):1258–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dillon MT et al (2021) Effectiveness of place-based mapping in electric-acoustic stimulation devices. Otol Neurotol 42(1):197–202

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Parrell B, Niziolek CA (2021) Increased speech contrast induced by sensorimotor adaptation to a nonuniform auditory perturbation. J Neurophysiol 125(2):638–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Banalagay RA et al (2020) Insertion depth for optimized positioning of precurved cochlear implant electrodes. Otol Neurotol 41(8):1066–1071

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Canfarotta MW et al (2021) Relationship between electrocochleography, angular insertion depth, and cochlear implant speech perception outcomes. Ear Hear 42(4):941–948

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by a Grant to Xiaowei Chen from the National High Level Hospital Clinical Research (No. 2022-PUMCH-D-002 and No. 2022-PUMCH-C-029).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xinmiao Fan, Tengyu Yang have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, #1 Shuaifuyuan, Beijing, 100730, People’s Republic of China

    Xinmiao Fan, Tengyu Yang, Yue Fan, Wenjie Song, Wei Gu & Xiaowei Chen

  2. Department of Radiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Xiaoping Lu & Yu Chen

Authors
  1. Xinmiao Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tengyu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yue Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wenjie Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wei Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xiaoping Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xiaowei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaowei Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of PUMCH and written informed consent was obtained from each studied family member.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication of individual's details was obtained from each subject or their parents.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, X., Yang, T., Fan, Y. et al. Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 719–729 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08151-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08151-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation