Kristen Rak

Fitting cochlear implant (CI) users can be challenging. Anatomy-based fitting (ABF) maps may have the potential to lead to better objective and subjective outcomes than conventional clinically based fitting (CBF) methods. ABF maps were created via information derived from exact electrode contact positions, which were determined via post-operative high-resolution flat panel volume computer tomography and clinical fitting software. The outcome measures were speech understanding in quiet and noise and self-perceived sound quality with the CBF map and with the ABF map. Participants were 10 experienced bilateral CI users. The ABF map provided better speech understanding in quiet and noisy environments compared to the CBF map. Additionally, two approaches of reducing the frequency-to-place mismatch revealed that participants are more likely to accept the ABF map if their electrode array is inserted deep enough to stimulate the apical region of their cochlea. This suggests an Angular Insertion Depth of the most apical contact of around 720°–620°. Participants had better speech understanding in quiet and noise with the ABF map. The maps’ self-perceived sound quality was similar. ABF mapping may be an effective tool for compensating the frequency-to-place mismatch in experienced bilateral CI users.

Background: The benefit of hearing rehabilitation is often measured using audiological tests or subjective questionnaires/interviews. It is important to consider both aspects in order to evaluate the overall benefits. Currently, there is no standardized method for reporting combined audiological and patient reported subjective outcome measures in clinical practice. Therefore, this study focuses on showing the patient’s audiological, as well as subjective outcomes in one graph using data from an existing study. Method: The present paper illustrated a graph presenting data on four quadrants with audiological and subjective findings. These quadrants represented speech comprehension in quiet (unaided vs. aided) as WRS% at 65 dB SPL, speech recognition in noise (unaided vs. aided) as SRT dB SNR, sound field threshold (unaided vs. aided) as PTA4 in dB HL, wearing time and patient satisfaction questionnaire results. Results: As an example, the HEARRING graph in this paper represented audiological and subjective datasets on a single patient level or a cohort of patients for an active bone conduction hearing implant solution. The graph offered the option to follow the user’s performance in time. Conclusion: The HEARRING graph allowed representation of a combination of audiological measures with patient reported outcomes in one single graph, indicating the overall benefit of the intervention. In addition, the correlation and consistency between some results (e.g., aided threshold and aided WRS) can be better visualized. Those users who lacked performance benefits on one or more parameters and called for further insight could be visually identified.