Research Information System
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, vol.34, no.4, pp.1003-1012, 2025 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)
Purpose: The aim of this prospective study was to compare the results of the traditional cochlear implant fitting method and the anatomy-based fitting method. Method: Seventy-two cochlear implant users with congenital (36 participants) and postlingual (36 participants) profound hearing loss and unilateral cochlear implantation were included in the study. After determining the center frequencies according to the actual anatomical location of each electrode contact on the computed tomography records obtained after implantation with OTOPLAN software (Version 1.5.0; CAScination AG), the cochlear implant processor was programmed with MED-EL MAESTRO 9.0 software using an anatomy-based fitting method. The Musical Perception Test (MPT), Spectral-Temporally Modulated Ripple Test (SMRT), free-field pure-tone hearing thresholds, speech recognition, and speech discrimination tests were applied. The results obtained with both methods were compared. Results: In both groups, the MPT and SMRT scores, free-field pure-tone hearing thresholds with cochlear implants, speech recognition, and speech discrimination test results were significantly higher with the anatomy-based fitting method compared with the traditional fitting method (p < .05). Conclusions: Cochlear implant users performed better with anatomy-based fitting. Thus, anatomy-based fitting should be incorporated into cochlear implant speech processor fitting methods.