Combining acoustic and electrical hearing

Objectives/Hypothesis: The concept of combining electrical stimulation for high‐frequency sound with acoustic hearing for low‐frequency information was tested. In addition, whether residual hearing can be preserved when an electrode is placed into the inner ear up to 10 mm and whether place of electrical stimulation influences speech perception were tested. Study Design: A single‐subject clinical trial design was employed. Methods: Six postlingual adults with severe high‐frequency hearing impairment were recruited to participate in the study. A new six‐channel cochlear implant was designed for the clinical trial. The intracochlear electrodes were either 6 or 10 mm in length based on a Nucleus CI‐24 multichannel implant. Monosyllabic word understanding and consonant identification testing in a recorded sound‐only condition were used to assess changes in speech perception. Follow‐up was greater than 12 months. Results: Acoustic hearing was preserved in all six subjects (n = 3,6‐mm electrodes; n = 3,10‐mm electrodes). Preoperative monosyllabic word and sentence scores were unchanged in all subjects following implantation. A 30% to 40% improvement in consonant recognition occurred with the 10‐mm electrode. The subjects with 10‐mm electrodes were able to understand 83% to 90% of the monosyllabic words using the implant plus binaural hearing aids. Scores were more than doubled when compared with preoperative scores with hearing aids only. Conclusion: The human ear has the capability to integrate both acoustic and high‐frequency electrically processed speech information. Placement of a short, 10‐mm electrode does not appear to damage residual low‐frequency inner ear hair cell function, interfere with the micro mechanics of normal cochlear vibration, or decrease residual speech perception. The improvement in speech recognition was due primarily to the increased perception of higher‐frequency consonantal speech cues, and this improvement took several months to become apparent. Such a device can provide a substantial benefit in speech understanding to individuals with severe high‐frequency hearing loss, while still maintaining the benefits of the residual lower‐frequency acoustic hearing. The position of the electrode and the place of frequency information within the cochlea were shown to be important factors in the success of such a device.

[1]  Michael Tykocinski,et al.  Cochleostomy site: Implications for electrode placement and hearing preservation , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[2]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[3]  G. A. Miller,et al.  The Intelligibility of Interrupted Speech , 1948 .

[4]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. I. Compound action potential recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

[5]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in cats. Physiological and histopathological results. , 1983, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[6]  Anna Piotrowska,et al.  [New method of partial deafness treatment]. , 2003, Otolaryngologia polska = The Polish otolaryngology.

[7]  Atsushi Kawano,et al.  Effects of Chronic Electrical Stimulation on Spiral Ganglion Neuron Survival and Size in Deafened Kittens , 1998, The Laryngoscope.

[8]  D D Dirks,et al.  Auditory filter characteristics and consonant recognition for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System: Results of a Clinical Study , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[10]  B C Moore,et al.  Auditory filter shapes in subjects with unilateral and bilateral cochlear impairments. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  J. Tomblin,et al.  A comparison of language achievement in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[12]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[13]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[14]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Music Perception with Temporal Cues in Acoustic and Electric Hearing , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Importance of tonal envelope cues in Chinese speech recognition , 1995 .

[16]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

[17]  Peggy B Nelson,et al.  Understanding speech in modulated interference: cochlear implant users and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Single-Fiber Recording , 2004 .

[20]  R V Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode location and spacing on phoneme recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Edwin Charles Moxon,et al.  Neural and mechanical responses to electric stimulation of the cat's inner ear , 1971 .

[22]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Binaural Cochlear Implants Placed during the Same Operation , 2002, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[23]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: How and why , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[24]  F. Zeng,et al.  Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  C. Turner,et al.  High-frequency audibility: benefits for hearing-impaired listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant speech recognition with speech maskers. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  T. Ching The evidence calls for making binaural‐bimodal fittings routine , 2005 .

[28]  J. Knutson,et al.  Recognition of familiar melodies by adult cochlear implant recipients and normal-hearing adults , 2002, Cochlear implants international.

[29]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  The perception of Cantonese lexical tones by early-deafened cochlear implantees. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  John C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Topographic Spread of Inferior Colliculus Activation in Response to Acoustic and Intracochlear Electric Stimulation , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[33]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[34]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels , 1951 .

[35]  E Lehnhardt,et al.  [Intracochlear placement of cochlear implant electrodes in soft surgery technique]. , 1993, HNO.

[36]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I: Normal hearing kittens , 1992, Hearing Research.

[37]  M F Dorman,et al.  Frequency discrimination and speech recognition by patients who use the Ineraid and continuous interleaved sampling cochlear-implant signal processors. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[38]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[39]  R. Snyder,et al.  Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation induces selective survival of spiral ganglion neurons in neonatally deafened cats , 1991, Hearing Research.

[40]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  C. Turner,et al.  Spread of masking in normal subjects and in subjects with high-frequency hearing loss. , 1986, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[42]  A. Duquesnoy Effect of a single interfering noise or speech source upon the binaural sentence intelligibility of aged persons. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  B. Woodson,et al.  Prediction of uvulopalatopharyngoplasty response using cephalometric radiographs. , 1997, American journal of otolaryngology.

[44]  Michael K. Qin,et al.  Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[45]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Preservation of Basal Inner Ear Structures in Cochlear Implantation , 2005, ORL.

[46]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[47]  D Byrne,et al.  Speech recognition of hearing-impaired listeners: predictions from audibility and the limited role of high-frequency amplification. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[48]  M. S. Sørensen,et al.  Estimation of Volume Referent Bone Turnover in the Otic Capsule after Sequential Point Labeling , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[49]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.

[50]  A. Hodges,et al.  Conservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[51]  Q J Fu,et al.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[52]  David B. Pisoni,et al.  Language Development in Profoundly Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants , 2000, Psychological science.

[53]  B J Kwon,et al.  Consonant identification under maskers with sinusoidal modulation: masking release or modulation interference? , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[54]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[55]  R. Miyamoto,et al.  Long-Term Results of Cochlear Implants in Children with Residual Hearing , 2000, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[56]  J. T Rubinstein,et al.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[57]  R. Shepherd,et al.  Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study , 1997, Hearing Research.

[58]  M. Liberman,et al.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves , 1984, Hearing Research.

[59]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[60]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.