Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.