Comparing Rapid and Traditional Forward-Masked Spatial Tuning Curves in Cochlear-Implant Users.
Heather A Kreft, Lindsay A DeVries, Julie G Arenberg and 1 others
PMID 31134842WHAT IT FOUND
In cochlear-implant users, a faster tuning-curve test produced similar shapes but was less reliable than the traditional method and still too slow for routine mapping.
Key findings
01In 12 postlingually deafened adults with cochlear implants, two runs per probe electrode at the University of Minnesota site took 23 min with the sweep method and 62 min with the traditional forced-choice method.
02Tuning-curve estimates from the sweep method correlated with the traditional method (correlations .49 to .66), but repeated sweep estimates were less reliable, and bootstrap simulations suggested about 4 times more repetitions would be needed to match them.
03For 24 out of 36 probe electrodes, the traditional method gave higher masked thresholds, and even at 23 min per electrode the sweep method was unlikely to fit current clinical constraints; adding thresholds and MCLs would exceed 30 min.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 12 adult cochlear-implant users were tested, all with Advanced Bionics devices, so the findings may not apply to other implant systems or broader CI populations. The sweep settings were carried over from absolute threshold testing and were not optimized for spatial tuning curves, so reliability might improve with different parameters. Sweep test-retest reliability was significantly lower than the traditional method; bootstrap simulations suggested about 4 times more repetitions would be needed to match it. Even the faster sweep took 23 min per probe electrode for two runs, and adding thresholds and MCLs would likely exceed 30 min for one electrode. The study compared measurement methods, not speech perception or mapping decisions, so it does not show that tuning-curve measures improve patient outcomes.
Declared interests
Funding was provided by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Advanced Bionics supplied the research hardware and software used to present and control the stimuli, and all participants had Advanced Bionics implants.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the faster tuning-curve method is ready for routine clinical use. Its repeated measurements were less reliable than the traditional method, and one electrode plus thresholds and MCLs would still likely exceed 30 min.