Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This report summarizes data collected over the span of more than a decade from four laboratories on the sound quality of cochlear implants. Sixteen projects (ten published and six unpublished) are summarized; two video and eleven audio files accompany the summaries. Fourteen of the projects used single sided deaf patients (SSD) fit with an implant (CI) as listeners; one project used SSD-CI patients with preserved hearing (HP) in their implanted ear; one project used conventional CI patients. Approximately a third of the SSD-CI patients could create close matches to CI sound quality. The matches varied as a function of electrode length. Patients fit with shorter electrode arrays used upshifted formant frequencies and/or voice pitch and spectral smearing to match sound quality. Approximately half of the patients with longer electrode arrays used low- or band-pass filtering, spectral smearing and/or pitch contour flattening to match sound quality. Other patients chose very few modifications – these signals were relatively clean. For the SSD-CI/HP patients, stimulation directed to both the CI and acoustic hearing was characterized, relative to stimulation directed only to the CI, by one or more of the following: (i) a lower F0, (ii) a less flattened F0 contour, (iii) less upshift in formant frequencies, (iv) less smear, and (v) fewer instances of high-pass filtering. The final project established that muffled sound quality could be reduced by including an input gain for mid frequencies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dorman et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: