Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32205726›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

Frequency-to-Place Mismatch: Characterizing Variability and the Influence on Speech Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Michael W Canfarotta, Margaret T Dillon, Emily Buss, Harold C Pillsbury, Kevin D Brown, Brendan P O'Connell

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05950412 unknown statusnot on this map

Relationship Between Pitch Discrimination, Music Abilities and Emotional Speech Perception in School Aged Children With Cochlear Implant

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSRan2023 to 2024Enrolled37ConditionsHearing Loss, Sensorineural
NCT06734039 naenrolling by invitationnot on this map

Impact of Anatomy-Based Frequency (ABF) Allocations on Early Performance Outcomes in MED-EL Cochlear Implant Recipients

TypeinterventionalSponsorMed-El CorporationRan2025 to 2028Enrolled50ConditionsHearing Loss, Unilateral, Cochlear Implants, Hearing Loss, Sensorineural, Single-Sided Deafness (SSD)ArmsProgramming of cochlear implant audio processor frequency settings
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 117 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tonotopic versus conventional frequency mapping in adult cochlear implant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation with anatomic or default frequency mapping in postlingual deafness adults.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Outcomes of anatomy based planning in cochlear implantation: a meta-analysis of advancing precision otologic medicine.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Angular Insertion Depth for Cochlear Implantation: A Comparative Analysis on Precision of CT, MRI, and x-Ray.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Influence of cochlear coverage on speech perception in single sided deafness, bimodal, and bilateral implanted cochlear implant patients.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael W CanfarottaDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Margaret T Dillon
Emily Buss
Harold C Pillsbury
Kevin D Brown
Brendan P O'Connell
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Research Training in OtolaryngologyT32DC005360 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MANIS, PAUL B · 2003 to 2023
$2.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe 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.

designOne 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.

resultsFor 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.

conclusionsThere 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.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationHearingHumans

Identifiers

PMID32205726
PMCPMC8407755
OpenAlexW3012763384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.