Comparison of Two Place-Based Mapping Procedures on Masked Sentence Recognition as a Function of Electrode Array Angular Insertion Depth and Presence of Acoustic Low-Frequency Information: A Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implant (CI) and electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users may experience better performance with maps that align the electric filter frequencies to the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based maps, than with maps that present spectrally shifted information. Individual place-based mapping procedures differ in the frequency content that is aligned to cochlear tonotopicity versus discarded or spectrally shifted. The performance benefit with different place-based maps may vary due to individual differences in angular insertion depth (AID) of the electrode array and whether functional acoustic low-frequency information is available in the implanted ear. The present study compared masked speech recognition with two types of place-based maps as a function of AID and presence of acoustic low-frequency information. METHODS: Sixty adults with normal hearing listened acutely to CI or EAS simulations of two types of place-based maps for one of three cases of electrode arrays at shallow AIDs. The strict place-based (Strict-PB) map aligned the low- and mid-frequency information to cochlear tonotopicity and discarded information below the frequency associated with the most apical electrode contact. The alternative place-based map (LFshift-PB) aligned the mid-frequency information to cochlear tonotopicity and provided more of the speech spectrum by compressing low-frequency information on the apical electrode contacts (i.e., <1 kHz). Three actual cases of a 12-channel, 24-mm electrode array were simulated by assigning the carrier frequency for an individual channel as the cochlear place frequency of the associated electrode contact. The AID and cochlear place frequency for the most apical electrode contact were 460° and 498 Hz for case 1, 389° and 728 Hz for case 2, and 335° and 987 Hz for case 3, respectively. RESULTS: Generally, better performance was observed with the Strict-PB maps for cases 1 and 2, where mismatches were 2-4 octaves for the most apical channel with the LFshift-PB map. Similar performance was observed between maps for case 3. For the CI simulations, performance with the Strict-PB map declined with decreases in AID, while performance with the LFshift-PB map remained stable across cases. For the EAS simulations, performance with the Strict-PB map remained stable across cases, while performance with the LFshift-PB map improved with decreases in AID. CONCLUSIONS: Listeners demonstrated differences with the Strict-PB versus LFshift-PB maps as a function of AID and whether acoustic low-frequency information was available (CI vs. EAS). These data support the use of the Strict-PB mapping procedure for AIDs ≥335°, though further study including time for acclimatization in CI and EAS users is warranted.