![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective
This study compared two different versions of an electrophysiology-based software-guided cochlear implant fitting method with a procedure employing standard clinical software. The two versions used electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) thresholds for either five or all twenty-two electrodes to determine sound processor stimulation level profiles. Objective and subjective performance results were compared between software-guided and clinical fittings.
Design
Prospective, double-blind, single-subject repeated-measures with permuted ABCA sequences.
Study sample
48 post linguistically deafened adults with ≤15 years of severe-to-profound deafness who were newly unilaterally implanted with a Nucleus device.
Results
Speech recognition in noise and quiet was not significantly different between software- guided and standard methods, but there was a visit/learning-effect. However, the 5-electrode method gave scores on the SSQ speech subscale 0.5 points lower than the standard method. Clinicians judged usability for all methods as acceptable, as did subjects for comfort. Analysis of stimulation levels and ECAP thresholds suggested that the 5-electrode method could be refined.
Conclusions
Speech recognition was not inferior using either version of the electrophysiology-based software-guided fitting method compared with the standard method. Subject-reported speech perception was slightly inferior with the five-electrode method. Software-guided methods saved about 10 min of clinician’s time versus standard fittings.
Acknowledgments
Statistical analysis was performed by Dominik H. Pfluger (Zurich, Switzerland). Chris James of Cochlear France provided additional analysis of map levels and edited the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
Authors N. Neben and F. Junge are employees of Cochlear Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG; manufacturer of Nucleus cochlear implants. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.