A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users

Abstract

Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch for bilateral cochlear-implant (BI-CI) listeners is often evaluated using pitch-comparison tasks that can be susceptible to procedural biases. Bias effects were compared for three sequential interaural pitch-comparison tasks in six BI-CI listeners using single-electrode direct stimulation. The reference (right ear) was a single basal, middle, or apical electrode. The comparison electrode (left ear) was chosen from one of three ranges: basal half, full array, or apical half. In Experiment 1 (discrimination), interaural pairs were chosen randomly (method of constant stimuli). In Experiment 2 (ranking), an efficient adaptive procedure rank ordered 3 reference and 6 or 11 comparison electrodes. In Experiment 3 (matching), listeners adjusted the comparison electrode to pitch match the reference. Each experiment was evaluated for testing-range bias (point of subjective equality [PSE] vs. comparison-range midpoint) and reference-electrode slope bias (PSE vs. reference electrode). Discrimination showed large biases for both metrics; matching showed a smaller but significant reference-electrode bias; ranking showed no significant biases in either dimension. Ranking and matching were also evaluated for starting-point bias (PSE vs. adaptive-track starting point), but neither showed significant effects. A response-distribution truncation model explained a nonsignificant bias for ranking but it could not fully explain the observed biases for discrimination or matching. It is concluded that (a) BI-CI interaural pitch comparisons are inconsistent across test methods; (b) biases must be evaluated in more than one dimension before accepting the results as valid; and (c) of the three methods tested, ranking was least susceptible to biases and therefore emerged as the optimal approach.