Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35394798›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2022

Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Margaret T Dillon, Brendan P O'Connell, Michael W Canfarotta, Emily Buss, Joseph Hopfinger

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

Article in American journal of audiology, 2022. 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

NCT04722042 nacompletednot on this map

Place-based Mapping in Electric-acoustic Stimulation Listeners

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2021 to 2024Enrolled39ConditionsCochlear ImplantArmsplace-based mapping, default mapping
NCT07476079 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Optimization and Validation of Electric Acoustic Stimulation (EAS) Mapping as a Function of Residual Hearing After CI-Implantation

TypeinterventionalSponsorLuzerner KantonsspitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled12ConditionsFitting Methods by EAS PatientsArmsThe objective fitting method of the EAS based on the thresholds of electrocochleography is the intervention of our study., The subjective adjustment of an EAS based on thresholds from the pure tone audiogram.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 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. Trial
  3. Article
  4. How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Exploring Anatomy-Based Fitting for Cochlear Implantation: A Narrative Review.Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Margaret T DillonDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0003-4344-283X
Brendan P O'ConnellDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Michael W CanfarottaDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Emily BussDepartment of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0001-8244-3013
Joseph HopfingerDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related ResearchR01DC008408 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI LABADIE, ROBERT F · 2007 to 2022
$7.6M
Model-based Cochlear Implant ProgrammingR01DC014037 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI NOBLE, JACK · 2014 to 2024
$5.0M
Computer-assisted, image-guided programming of Cochlear ImplantsR01DC014462 · NIDCD · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI DAWANT, BENOIT M. · 2016 to 2020
$2.9M
Research Training in OtolaryngologyT32DC005360 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MANIS, PAUL B · 2003 to 2023
$2.8M
Place-Based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation ListenersR21DC018389 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DILLON, MARGARET T, O'CONNELL, BRENDAN P · 2021 to 2022
$428k
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC008408NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014037NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014462NIDCD NIH HHS R21 DC018389NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCochlear 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.

methodA 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.

resultsPerformance 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.

conclusionsReducing 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. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529053.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationCochlear ImplantsSpeech PerceptionAcousticsAcoustic StimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID35394798
PMCPMC9524846
OpenAlexW4223626922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.