Variables that Effect Psychophysical Parameters and Duration to Stability in Cochlear Implant MappingMaria CS1* and Maria PLS2
- *Corresponding Author:
- Chloe Santa Maria
Department of Ear Sciences
The University of Western Australia
4th Floor, Harry Perkins Medical Research Institute
QEII Medical Campus, Hospital Ave, Nedlands
WA, 6000, Australia
Tel: 61 8 9346 3333
Fax: 61 8 9346 3089
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date:: March 06, 2016 Accepted date:: March 18, 2016 Published date:: March 25, 2016
Citation: Maria CS, Maria PLS (2016) Variables that Effect Psychophysical Parameters and Duration to Stability in Cochlear Implant Mapping. Otolaryngol (Sunnyvale) 6:226. doi:10.4172/2161-119X.1000226
Copyright: © 2016 Maria CS, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
The process of rehabilitation after cochlear implant surgery involves programming the psychophysical parameters of the implant in a process called mapping. The audiology appointments involved in the mapping process are large contributors to cost of implant rehabilitation. The map is defined as stable when there is little variation over time. Once an implant map is stable there is reduced need for intensive rehabilitation and an increase in implant patient satisfaction. A literature search was conducted using the terms “map cochlear implant”, “mapping cochlear implant”, “psychophysical cochlear implant” with a date range from August 1957 to February 2016. A total of 560 articles were identified and 29 articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation. The most important factor identified, that determines map stability, is the patient’s subjective implant experience. Patient demographics and implant variables have not been identified as significant. The second side implant in bilateral implantation has been shown to have significantly less time to map stability. There is a need for further studies to examine relationships between preoperative variables and the mapping process, rather than applying a “one size fits all approach”, which is the current standard of care. This is of particular need in the setting of the second side in bilateral implantation.