Neuronal responses in cat inferior colliculus to combined acoustic and electric stimulation

Electric-acoustic interaction measurements in cochlear-implant users with ipsilateral residual hearing using electrocochleography

Cochlear implantation is increasingly being used as a hearing-loss treatment for patients with residual hearing in the low acoustic frequencies. These patients obtain combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). Substantial residual hearing and relatively long electrode arrays can lead to interactions between the electric and acoustic stimulation. This work investigated EAS interaction through psychophysical and electrophysiological measures. Moreover, cone-beam computed-tomography data was used to characterize the interaction along spatial cochlear locations. Psychophysical EAS interaction was estimated based on the threshold of audibility of an acoustic probe stimulus in the presence of a simultaneously presented electric masker stimulus. Intracochlear electrocochleography was used to estimate electrophysiological EAS interaction via the telemetry capability of the cochlear implant. EAS interaction was observed using psychophysical and electrophysiological measurements. While psychoacoustic EAS interaction was most pronounced close to the electrical stimulation site, electrophysiological EAS interaction was observed over a wider range of spatial cochlear locations. Psychophysical EAS interaction was significantly larger than electrophysiological EAS interaction for acoustic probes close to the electrode position.

Cochlear Implant Stimulation of a Hearing Ear Generates Separate Electrophonic and Electroneural Responses

Electroacoustic stimulation in subjects with residual hearing is becoming more widely used in clinical practice. However, little is known about the properties of electrically induced responses in the hearing cochlea. In the present study, normal-hearing guinea pig cochleae underwent cochlear implantation through a cochleostomy without significant loss of hearing. Using recordings of unit activity in the midbrain, we were able to investigate the excitation patterns throughout the tonotopic field determined by acoustic stimulation. With the cochlear implant and the midbrain multielectrode arrays left in place, the ears were pharmacologically deafened and electrical stimulation was repeated in the deafened condition. The results demonstrate that, in addition to direct neuronal (electroneuronal) stimulation, in the hearing cochlea excitation of the hair cells occurs ("electrophonic responses") at the cochlear site corresponding to the dominant temporal frequency components of the electrical stimulus, provided these are < 12 kHz. The slope of the rate-level functions of the neurons in the deafened condition was steeper and the firing rate was higher than in the hearing condition at those sites that were activated in the two conditions. Finally, in a monopolar stimulation configuration, the differences between hearing status conditions were smaller than in the narrower (bipolar) configurations.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Stimulation with cochlear implants and hearing aids is becoming more widely clinically used in subjects with residual hearing. The neurophysiological characteristics underlying electroacoustic stimulation and the mechanism of its benefit remain unclear. The present study directly demonstrates that cochlear implantation does not interfere with the normal mechanical and physiological function of the cochlea. For the first time, it double-dissociates the electrical responses of hair cells (electrophonic responses) from responses of the auditory nerve fibers (electroneural responses), with separate excited cochlear locations in the same animals. We describe the condition in which these two responses spatially overlap. Finally, the study implicates that using the clinical characteristics of stimulation makes electrophonic responses unlikely in implanted subjects.

Electroacoustic stimulation: now and into the future

Cochlear implants have provided hearing to hundreds of thousands of profoundly deaf people around the world. Recently, the eligibility criteria for cochlear implantation have been relaxed to include individuals who have some useful residual hearing. These recipients receive inputs from both electric and acoustic stimulation (EAS). Implant recipients who can combine these hearing modalities demonstrate pronounced benefit in speech perception, listening in background noise, and music appreciation over implant recipients that rely on electrical stimulation alone. The mechanisms bestowing this benefit are unknown, but it is likely that interaction of the electric and acoustic signals in the auditory pathway plays a role. Protection of residual hearing both during and following cochlear implantation is critical for EAS. A number of surgical refinements have been implemented to protect residual hearing, and the development of hearing-protective drug and gene therapies is promising for EAS recipients. This review outlines the current field of EAS, with a focus on interactions that are observed between these modalities in animal models. It also outlines current trends in EAS surgery and gives an overview of the drug and gene therapies that are clinically translatable and may one day provide protection of residual hearing for cochlear implant recipients.

Overlapping frequency coverage and simulated spatial cue effects on bimodal (electrical and acoustical) sentence recognition in noise

Sentence recognition in 20-talker babble was measured in eight Nucleus cochlear implant (CI) users with contralateral residual acoustic hearing. Speech reception thresholds (SRTs) were measured both in standard configurations, with some frequency regions presented both acoustically and electrically, and in configurations with no spectral overlap. In both cases a continuous interleaved sampling strategy was used. Mean SRTs were around 3 dB better with bimodal presentation than with CI alone in overlap configurations. A spherical head model was used to simulate azimuthal separation of speech and noise and provided no evidence of a contribution of spatial cues to bimodal benefit. There was no effect on bimodal performance of whether spectral overlap was present or was eliminated by switching off electrodes assigned to frequencies below the upper limit of acoustic hearing. In a subsequent experiment the CI was acutely re-mapped so that all available electrodes were used to cover frequencies not presented acoustically. This gave increased spectral resolution via the CI as assessed by formant frequency discrimination, but no improvement in bimodal performance compared to the configuration with overlap.