Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: Combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is a therapeutic option for patients with severe to profound mid- and high-frequency hearing loss while low-frequency hearing is mostly unaffected. The present study investigates bimodal pitch matching in EAS users as a function of the angular placement of electrodes. Results are compared with data obtained from previous pitch matching studies. Knowledge of electric and acoustic pitch mapping may be important for effective fitting to control the frequency range of acoustic and electric processing.

DESIGN: Pitch adjustment experiments were conducted in eight subjects with residual hearing in the opposite ear as well as in the implanted ear. Four subjects received a standard 31.5-mm electrode array and four subjects received the shorter, more flexible 24-mm FLEX electrode array (PULSARCI100 or SONATATI100 stimulator, MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria). The subjects' task was to listen to single-electrode stimuli presented at a fixed rate (800 pulses per second) via the cochlear implant and to adjust the frequency of the acoustic stimulus until the perceived pitch matched the perception of the electrically conveyed stimulus. Two to four of the most apical electrodes were tested depending on the range of the individual's residual hearing. Postoperative x rays (modified Stenver's view) were analyzed to compare individual pitch matching data in terms of the electrode arrays' insertion angle.

RESULTS: The average mean frequency match for the most apical electrode 1 in EAS subjects implanted with the FLEX array was 583 Hz, while for the two subjects with a deep insertion of the 31.5-mm standard electrode array, the matches were 128 and 223 Hz. Because the residual hearing in the EAS subgroup was rather limited in the high-frequency range, a limited number of basal electrodes were assessed to determine the slope of the electric place/pitch function. A considerable variation in terms of the individual pitch function was observed. The slope of the pitch function varied to a large extent among subjects. The differences between contra- and ipsilateral adjustments were very small (mean average 14 Hz) and within the range of the variance (average SD 124 Hz).

CONCLUSIONS: The application of a pitch matching procedure to assess the electric/acoustic crossover frequency is feasible. In the present study, ipsi- and contralateral pitch matches made by EAS patients were nearly equal; therefore, a severe alteration in the excitation pattern of the basilar membrane in the implanted ear can be ruled out.