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

OBJECTIVES: The 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.
DESIGN: One 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.
RESULTS: For 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.
CONCLUSIONS: There 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.