Prospective Comparison Between Manual and Computer-Assisted (FOX) Cochlear Implant Fitting in Newly Implanted Patients

Abstract

Objective: 

A prospective, longitudinal, randomized controlled trial with an original crossover design for 1 year was conducted to compare manual fitting to artificial intelligence-based fitting in newly implanted patients.

Design: 

Twenty-four patients who received their first cochlear implant (CI) were randomly assigned to the manual or Fitting to Outcome eXpert (FOX) arm; they followed the corresponding fitting procedures for 1 year. After 1 year, each patient was switched to another arm. The number of fittings, auditory outcomes (pure-tone thresholds, loudness scaling curves, spectral discrimination scores, bisyllabic word recognition in quiet and noise, and speech tracking), fitting session questionnaire, and CI parameters (T level, C level, Threshold Sound Pressure Level (T-SPL), Comfortable Sound Pressure Level (C-SPL), and loudness growth value) were compared between the two groups. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test, and Holm corrections were applied for multiple statistical tests. At the end of the crossover session, patients were offered the choice to continue with their old or new map.

Results: 

As early as 3 mo postactivation, the FOX group showed less variability and significantly better speech intelligibility in quiet conditions at 40 and 55 dB SPL and noise (p < 0.05) with median phoneme scores of 50%, 70%, and 50% at 55, 70, and 85 dB SPL compared with 45%, 50%, and 40%, respectively. This group showed better results at 12 mo postactivation (p < 0.05). In the manual group, 100% of the patients decided to keep the new FOX map, and 82% performed better with the FOX map. In the FOX group, 63% of the patients decided to keep the manual map, although the measurable outcome had not improved. In this group, participants reported to prefer the manual map because it felt more comfortable, even if the FOX map gave better measured outcome.

Conclusion: 

Although the study size remains relatively small, the AI-FOX approach was equivalent to or even outperformed the manual approach in hearing performance, comfort, and resources. Furthermore, FOX is a tool capable of continuous improvement by comparing its predictions with observed results and is continuously learning from clinicians’ practice, which is why this technology promises major advances in the future.