Symmetric Electrode Spanning Narrows the Excitation Patterns of Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants

Exploring the Use of Interleaved Stimuli to Measure Cochlear-Implant Excitation Patterns

PURPOSE

Attempts to use current-focussing strategies with cochlear implants (CI) to reduce neural spread-of-excitation have met with only mixed success in human studies, in contrast to promising results in animal studies. Although this discrepancy could stem from between-species anatomical and aetiological differences, the masking experiments used in human studies may be insufficiently sensitive to differences in excitation-pattern width.

METHODS

We used an interleaved-masking method to measure psychophysical excitation patterns in seven participants with four masker stimulation configurations: monopolar (MP), partial tripolar (pTP), a wider partial tripolar (pTP + 2), and, importantly, a condition (RP + 2) designed to produce a broader excitation pattern than MP. The probe was always in partial-tripolar configuration.

RESULTS

We found a significant effect of stimulation configuration on both the amount of on-site masking (mask and probe on same electrode; an indirect indicator of sharpness) and the difference between off-site and on-site masking. Differences were driven solely by RP + 2 producing a broader excitation pattern than the other configurations, whereas monopolar and the two current-focussing configurations did not statistically differ from each other.

CONCLUSION

A method that is sensitive enough to reveal a modest broadening in RP + 2 showed no evidence for sharpening with focussed stimulation. We also showed that although voltage recordings from the implant accurately predicted a broadening of the psychophysical excitation patterns with RP + 2, they wrongly predicted a strong sharpening with pTP + 2. We additionally argue, based on our recent research, that the interleaved-masking method can usefully be applied to non-human species and objective measures of CI excitation patterns.

Dynamic Current Focusing Compared to Monopolar Stimulation in a Take-Home Trial of Cochlear Implant Users

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the performance of a dynamic partial tripolar cochlear implant speech encoding strategy termed dynamic current focusing (DCF) to monopolar stimulation (MP) using spectro-temporal, temporal, and speech-in-noise recognition testing.

DESIGN

DCF is a strategy that utilizes tripolar or high partial tripolar stimulation at threshold level and increases loudness by slowly widening current spread towards most comfortable level. Thirteen cochlear implant users were fitted with DCF and a non-steered MP matched on pulse rate, pulse width, and active electrodes. Nine participants completed the single-blinded within-subject crossover trial. Repeated testing consisted of four sessions. Strategies were allocated in a DCF-MP-DCF-MP or MP-DCF-MP-DCF design. Three-week adaptation periods ended with a test session in which speech-in-noise recognition (matrix speech-in-noise sentence test), spectro-temporal ripple tests (SMRT and STRIPES) and a temporal amplitude modulation detection test were conducted. All participants recorded their subjective experiences with both strategies using the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire.

RESULTS

Participants' SMRT thresholds improved 0.40 ripples per octave ( p = 0.02, Bonferroni-corrected: p = 0.1) with DCF over MP at 65 dB SPL. No significant differences between the strategies were found on speech-in-noise recognition at conversational (65 dB SPL) and soft (45 dB SPL) loudness levels, temporal testing, STRIPES, or the SMRT at 45 dB SPL. After Bonferroni correction, a learning effect remained on the matrix speech-in-noise sentence test at both loudness levels (65 dB SPL: p = 0.01; 45 dB SPL: p = 0.02). There was no difference in learning effects over time between DCF and MP. Similarly, no significant differences were found in subjective experience on the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale questionnaire. DCF reduced average battery life by 48% (5.1 hours) ( p < 0.001) compared to MP.

CONCLUSIONS

DCF may improve spectral resolution over MP at comfortable loudness (65 dB SPL) in cochlear implant users. However, the evidence collected in this study was weak and the significant result disappeared after Bonferroni correction. Also, not all spectral tests revealed this improvement. As expected, battery life was reduced for DCF. Although the current study is limited by its small sample size, considering previous studies, DCF does not consistently improve speech recognition in noise over MP strategies.

Intraoperative transimpedance and spread of excitation profile correlations with a lateral-wall cochlear implant electrode array

A limiting factor of cochlear implant technology is the spread of electrode-generated intracochlear electrical field (EF) leading to spread of neural excitation (SOE). In this study, we investigated the relation of the spread of the intracochlear EF, assessed via transimpedance matrix (TIM), and SOE. A total of 43 consecutive patients (ages 0.7-82 years; 31.0 ± 25.7 years, mean ± SD) implanted with a Cochlear Nucleus CI522 or CI622 cochlear implant with Slim Straight electrode array (altogether 51 ears) were included in the study. Cochlear nerve was visualized for all patients in preoperative imaging and there were no cochlear anomalies in the study sample. The stimulated electrodes were in the basal, middle, and apical parts of the electrode array (electrode numbers 6, 11, and 19, respectively). The stimulation level was 210 CL on average for the TIM measurement and always 230 CL for the SOE measurement. Approximately 90% of the individual TIM and SOE profiles correlated with each other (p < .05; r = 0.61-0.99). Also, the widths of the TIM and SOE peaks, computed at 50% of the maximum height, exhibited a weak correlation (r = 0.39, p = .007). The 50% widths of TIM and SOE were the same only in the apical part of the electrode array; in the basal part SOE was wider than TIM, and in the middle part TIM was wider than SOE (p < .01 and p = .048, respectively). Within each measurement, TIM 50% widths were different between all three parts of the electrode array, while for SOE, only the basal electrode differed from the middle electrode. Finally, the size of the cochlea and the 50% widths of TIM and SOE had the strongest correlation in the middle part of the electrode array (r = -0.63, and -0.37, respectively). Our results suggest that there is a correlation between the spread of intracochlear EF and neural SOE at least in the apical part of the electrode array used in this study, and that larger cochleae are associated with more focused TIM and SOE.

Combining current focusing and steering in a cochlear implant processing strategy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit of combined current focusing and steering to speech recognition in noise with cochlear implants (CIs).

DESIGN

Combined current focusing and steering was implemented using focused partial tripolar (pTP) mode with two current steering ranges. The two pTPsteering strategies were compared to a monopolar (MP) strategy without current focusing or steering and a pTP strategy with only current focusing using the Hearing in Noise Test. The strategies differed only in stimulation mode.

STUDY SAMPLE

Ten post-lingually deafened adult CI users participated in this study.

RESULTS

Compared to the MP strategy, both pTPsteering strategies produced significantly better speech reception thresholds, while the pTP strategy did not. Subjects with better baseline MP performance had less improvements with the pTPsteering strategies. All four strategies were experimental low-rate strategies and none of them outperformed subjects' clinical strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Speech recognition in noise was better with the pTPsteering strategies than with the MP strategy, but the effect of pTP-mode current steering on spectral resolution is yet to be tested.