Influence of Electric Frequency-to-Place Mismatches on the Early Speech Recognition Outcomes for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Users.

PURPOSE: Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with hearing preservation experience significant improvements in speech recognition with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) as compared to with a CI alone, although outcomes across EAS users vary. The individual differences in performance may be due in part to default mapping procedures, which result in electric frequency-to-place mismatches for the majority of EAS users. This study assessed the influence of electric mismatches on the early speech recognition for EAS users. METHOD: Twenty-one participants were randomized at EAS activation to listen exclusively with a default or place-based map. For both groups, the unaided thresholds determined the acoustic cutoff frequency (i.e., > 65 dB HL). For default maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid spectral gaps in frequency information but created varying magnitudes of mismatches. For place-based maps, the electric filter frequencies were assigned to avoid frequency-to-place mismatches. Recognition of consonant-nucleus-consonant words and vowels was assessed at activation and 1, 3, and 6 months postactivation. RESULTS: For participants with default maps, electric mismatch at 1500 Hz ranged from 2 to -12.0 semitones (Mdn = -5 semitones). Poorer performance was observed for those with larger magnitudes of electric mismatch. This effect was observed through 6 months of EAS listening experience. CONCLUSIONS: The present sample of EAS users experienced better initial performance when electric mismatches were small or eliminated. These data suggest the utility of methods that reduce electric mismatches, such as place-based mapping procedures. Investigation is ongoing to determine whether these differences persist with long-term EAS use. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22096523.

Influence of Protective Face Coverings on the Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to characterize the effects of wearing face coverings on: 1) acoustic speech cues, and 2) speech recognition of patients with hearing loss who listen with a cochlear implant. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center between July and September 2020. A female talker recorded sentences in three conditions: no face covering, N95 mask, and N95 mask plus a face shield. Spectral differences were analyzed between speech produced in each condition. The speech recognition in each condition for twenty-three adult patients with at least 6 months of cochlear implant use was assessed. RESULTS: Spectral analysis demonstrated preferential attenuation of high-frequency speech information with the N95 mask plus face shield condition compared to the other conditions. Speech recognition did not differ significantly between the uncovered (median 90% [IQR 89%-94%]) and N95 mask conditions (91% [IQR 86%-94%]; P = .253); however, speech recognition was significantly worse in the N95 mask plus face shield condition (64% [IQR 48%-75%]) compared to the uncovered (P < .001) or N95 mask (P < .001) conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The type and combination of protective face coverings used have differential effects on attenuation of speech information, influencing speech recognition of patients with hearing loss. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need to protect patients and clinicians from spread of disease while maximizing patient speech recognition. The disruptive effect of wearing a face shield in conjunction with a mask may prompt clinicians to consider alternative eye protection, such as goggles, in appropriate clinical situations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:E2038-E2043, 2021.