Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29(01): s00441789194
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1789194
Original Research

Feasibility of Self-Programming of the Speech Processor Via Remote Assistant Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users

Paola Angelica Samuel-Sierra 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Maria Valéria Schimidt Goffi-Gomez 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Robinson Koji Tsuji 
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculty of Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding The authors received no financial support for the research.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Adults with cochlear implants (CIs) need periodic programming of their speech processors to take advantage of alternative adjustments. However, this requires patients to attend the CI center in person.

Objectives To evaluate the feasibility of speech processor (SP) self-programming with remote assistance in CI users. To establish the characteristics of those who could benefit from self-programming.

Methods Adults with at least 1 year of experience with their CI, and whose SP was compatible with the use of the remote assistant fitting (RAF) were selected. Maps were created by the RAF from the neural response telemetry (NRT) results, evaluated in the same session with the audiologist. Patients were given 15-days to adjust to either the routine map or the NRT-based one. In the next session, the minimum and maximum stimulation levels (T- and C-levels) of all the maps were compared.

Results No statistical difference was found when comparing the T- and C-levels of the map in use, the map adjusted by RAF, and the NRT-based map created by the RAF and adjusted by the patient.

Conclusion Self-programming of the SP was safe and feasible in the studied sample of adults, since T- and C-levels were similar between the behavioral and RAF-adjusted maps. We consider it advisable to use the RAF for patients who have insertion of electrodes and at least one functioning; as well as those who do not have changes in anatomy, nor motor and cognitive conditions that prevent RAF usage.

Keywords

cochlear implant - deafness - fitting - remote fitting - neural response telemetry

Approval

Approved by the Ethics Committee on Research of the Institution, protocol number 1.076.661.




Publication History

Received: 19 March 2024

Accepted: 17 June 2024

Article published online:
27 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

Bibliographical Record
Paola Angelica Samuel-Sierra, Maria Valéria Schimidt Goffi-Gomez, Ana Tereza de Matos Magalhães, Ricardo Ferreira Bento, Robinson Koji Tsuji. Feasibility of Self-Programming of the Speech Processor Via Remote Assistant Fitting in Experienced Cochlear Implant Users. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29: s00441789194.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1789194
 

  • References

  • 1 Firszt JB, Reeder RM. How we do it: tuning up a young child. Cochlear Implants Int 2005; 6 (04) 178-182
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wolfe J, Schafe EC. Basic Principles of Programming. In: Wolfe J. Schafer EC. Programming Cochlear Implants. Plural Publishing Inc.; 2010
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012; 45 (01) 111-127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK. et al. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (01) 45-59
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Franck KH, Norton SJ. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's CI24M device. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (04) 289-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JE. Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurotol 2002; 7 (06) 335-347
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Smoorenburg GF. Development of speech perception in adults over time; comparison of performance measures. Cochlear Implant Ear Marks. University Medical Centre Utrecht; 2007
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Willeboer C, Smoorenburg GF. Comparing cochlear implant users' speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or on compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (06) 789-798
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Browning LM, Nie Y, Rout A, Heiner M. Audiologists' preferences in programming cochlear implants: A preliminary report. Cochlear Implants Int 2020; 21 (04) 179-191
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ. et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (06) 471-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Shapiro W, Waltzman S. Changes in electrical thresholds over time in young children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 177-178
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kawano A, Seldon HL, Clark GM, Ramsden RT, Raine CH. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol 1998; 118 (03) 313-326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Allum JH, Greisiger R, Probst R. Relationship of intraoperative electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds to maximum comfortable loudness levels of children with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (02) 93-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Mosca F, Grassia R, Leone CA. Longitudinal variations in fitting parameters for adult cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2014; 34 (02) 111-116
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Gajadeera EA, Galvin KL, Dowell RC, Busby PA. Investigation of electrical stimulation levels over 8 to 10 years postimplantation for a large cohort of adults using cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 736-745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Zumpano CE, Bevilacqua MC, Frederigue-Lopes NB, Costa OA. Programação remota dos sistemas de implante coclear. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2009; 14 (03) 539-546
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ramos A, Rodríguez C, Martinez-Beneyto P. et al. Use of telemedicine in the remote programming of cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol 2009; 129 (05) 533-540
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 McElveen Jr JTJ, Blackburn EL, Green Jr JDJ, McLear PW, Thimsen DJ, Wilson BS. Remote programming of cochlear implants: a telecommunications model. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (07) 1035-1040
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Rodríguez C, Ramos A, Falcon JC, Martínez-Beneyto P, Gault A, Boyle P. Use of telemedicine in the remote programming of cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2010; 11 (Suppl. 01) 461-464
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Wesarg T, Wasowski A, Skarzynski H. et al. Remote fitting in Nucleus cochlear implant recipients. Acta Otolaryngol 2010; 130 (12) 1379-1388
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Wasowski A, Skarzynski PH, Lorens A, Obrycka A, Walkowiak A, Bruski L. Remote fitting of cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 2010; 11 (Suppl. 01) 489-492
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Goehring JL, Hughes ML, Baudhuin JL. Evaluating the feasibility of using remote technology for cochlear implants. Volta Review 2012a; 112 (03) 255-265
    Crossref
  • 23 Eikelboom RH, Jayakody DMP, Swanepoel DW, Chang S, Atlas MD. Validation of remote mapping of cochlear implants. J Telemed Telecare 2014; 20 (04) 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kuzovkov V, Yanov Y, Levin S. et al. Remote programming of MED-EL cochlear implants: users' and professionals' evaluation of the remote programming experience. Acta Otolaryngol 2014; 134 (07) 709-716
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Samuel PA, Goffi-Gomez MVS, Bittencourt AG, Tsuji RK, Brito Rd. Remote programming of cochlear implants. CoDAS 2014; 26 (06) 481-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Samuel PA. Teleprogramação dos sistemas de implante coclear [master thesis]. São Paulo: Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Medicina; 2015 [cited 2024–03–19]
    Crossref
  • 27 Schepers K, Steinhoff HJ, Ebenhoch H. et al. Remote programming of cochlear implants in users of all ages. Acta Otolaryngol 2019; 139 (03) 251-257
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Slager HK, Jensen J, Kozlowski K. et al. Remote programming of Cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2019; 40 (03) e260-e266
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Haumann S, Hohmann V, Meis M, Herzke T, Lenarz T, Büchner A. Indication criteria for cochlear implants and hearing aids: impact of audiological and non-audiological findings. Audiology Res 2012; 2 (01) e12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Cullington H, Kitterick P, DeBold L. et al. Have Cochlear Implant, Won't Have to Travel: Introducing Telemedicine to People Using Cochlear Implants. Am J Audiol 2016a; 25 (3S, 3s) 299-302
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 31 Dwyer RT, Spahr T, Agrawal S, Hetlinger C, Holder JT, Gifford RH. Participant-generated Cochlear Implant Programs: Speech Recognition, Sound Quality, and Satisfaction. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (07) e209-e216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Lenarz T. Cochlear implant - state of the art. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2018; 16: Doc04
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Botros A, Banna R, Maruthurkkara S. The next generation of Nucleus(®) fitting: a multiplatform approach towards universal cochlear implant management. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (07) 485-494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Vroegop JL, Dingemanse JG, van der Schroeff MP, Metselaar RM, Goedegebure A. Self-Adjustment of Upper Electrical Stimulation Levels in CI Programming and the Effect on Auditory Functioning. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (04) e232-e240
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Cullington H, Kitterick P, Weal M, Margol-Gromada M. Feasibility of personalised remote long-term follow-up of people with cochlear implants: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (04) e019640
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Botros A, van Dijk B, Killian M. AutoNR: an automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med 2007; 40 (01) 15-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Smoorenburg GF. Fitting the cochlear implant processor parametrically using live-voice stimuli. Cochlear Implants Int 2005; 6 (Suppl. 01) 38-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 van Dijk B, Botros AM, Battmer RD. et al. Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (04) 558-570
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Botros A, Psarros C. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 367-379
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Bennett RJ, Jayakody DM, Eikelboom RH, Taljaard DS, Atlas MD. A prospective study evaluating cochlear implant management skills: development and validation of the Cochlear Implant Management Skills survey. Clin Otolaryngol 2016; 41 (01) 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Govaerts PJ, Vaerenberg B, De Ceulaer G, Daemers K, De Beukelaer C, Schauwers K. Development of a software tool using deterministic logic for the optimization of cochlear implant processor programming. Otol Neurotol 2010; 31 (06) 908-918
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Cullington H, Kitterick P, DeBold L. et al. Personalised long-term follow-up of cochlear implant patients using remote care, compared with those on the standard care pathway: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2016; 6 (05) e011342
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar