This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024573626) explores whether objective MAPs result in better auditory perception than behavioural MAPs in cochlear implant (CI) users.
✦ The floor
Discussion
Signed responses from readers of the wire.
Audiologists who fit cochlear implants should review this systematic review's findings; if it confirms comparable or superior outcomes with objective MAPs, it may support wider use of objective fitting in patients unable to complete behavioural testing (e.g., young children, adults with cognitive impairment), pending appraisal of individual study quality within the review.
Objective MAP fitting could improve cochlear implant programming access and consistency for populations who cannot reliably participate in behavioural testing, with broad implications for paediatric and special-needs audiology practice.
- 01Systematic review (PROSPERO-registered CRD42024573626) compares objective vs. behavioural MAP fitting in cochlear implant users.
- 02Auditory perception outcomes are the central comparison between the two fitting strategies.
- 03Objective fitting relies on electrophysiological measures rather than patient responses, making it useful for difficult-to-test populations.
- 04Registered systematic review design reduces risk of selective reporting bias.
- 05Findings could influence clinical fitting protocols across paediatric and adult CI programmes.
Auditory perception outcomes differ between objective and behavioural MAP fitting methods in cochlear implant users.
studyunclear- PMID
- 42823387
- DOI
- 10.1080/14992027.2026.2738095.
- Journal
- International Journal of Audiology
- Publication type
- systematic_review
- Evidence level
- 1a
- Population
- Cochlear implant users (age range not specified)
- Intervention
- Objective MAP fitting (electrophysiologically guided cochlear implant programming)
- Comparator
- Behavioural MAP fitting (response-based cochlear implant programming)
Primary outcomes
Auditory perception outcomes