Design and Evaluation of a Cochlear Implant Strategy Based on a “Phantom” Channel

Unbalanced bipolar stimulation, delivered using charge balanced pulses, was used to produce “Phantom stimulation”, stimulation beyond the most apical contact of a cochlear implant’s electrode array. The Phantom channel was allocated audio frequencies below 300Hz in a speech coding strategy, conveying energy some two octaves lower than the clinical strategy and hence delivering the fundamental frequency of speech and of many musical tones. A group of 12 Advanced Bionics cochlear implant recipients took part in a chronic study investigating the fitting of the Phantom strategy and speech and music perception when using Phantom. The evaluation of speech in noise was performed immediately after fitting Phantom for the first time (Session 1) and after one month of take-home experience (Session 2). A repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) within factors strategy (Clinical, Phantom) and interaction time (Session 1, Session 2) revealed a significant effect for the interaction time and strategy. Phantom obtained a significant improvement in speech intelligibility after one month of use. Furthermore, a trend towards a better performance with Phantom (48%) with respect to F120 (37%) after 1 month of use failed to reach significance after type 1 error correction. Questionnaire results show a preference for Phantom when listening to music, likely driven by an improved balance between high and low frequencies.

[1]  Aniket A. Saoji,et al.  Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants , 2013, Hearing Research.

[2]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  Peter Vary,et al.  Digital Speech Transmission: Enhancement, Coding and Error Concealment , 2006 .

[4]  Brent Townshend,et al.  Reduction of Electrical Interaction in Auditory Prostheses , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Selective Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve Activates a Pathway Specialized for High Temporal Acuity , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  Christopher A Brown,et al.  Low-frequency speech cues and simulated electric-acoustic hearing. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  G Woodworth,et al.  Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  Patricia A. Leake,et al.  Frequency Map for the Human Cochlear Spiral Ganglion: Implications for Cochlear Implants , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[9]  Mark Downing,et al.  Using Current Steering to Increase Spectral Resolution in CII and HiRes 90K Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  Cochlear Implant Channel Separation and Its Influence on Speech Perception – Implications for a New Electrode Design , 2007, Audiology and Neurotology.

[11]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Diversity in Cochlear Morphology and Its Influence on Cochlear Implant Electrode Position , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[12]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Role of Electrode Placement as a Contributor to Variability in Cochlear Implant Outcomes , 2008, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[13]  Alessandro Scorpecci,et al.  Improving melody recognition in cochlear implant recipients through individualized frequency map fitting , 2010, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[14]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Acoustic Simulations of Combined Electric and Acoustic Hearing (EAS) , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[15]  J. Knutson,et al.  Effects of Frequency, Instrumental Family, and Cochlear Implant Type on Timbre Recognition and Appraisal , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[16]  R. Likert.  “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[17]  B. Moore,et al.  Perceived naturalness of spectrally distorted speech and music. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Temporal pitch in electric hearing , 2002, Hearing Research.

[19]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Lennart Magnusson.  Comparison of the fine structure processing (FSP) strategy and the CIS strategy used in the MED-EL cochlear implant system: Speech intelligibility and music sound quality , 2011, International journal of audiology.

[21]  Ying-Yee Kong,et al.  Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  H J McDermott,et al.  Pitch percepts associated with amplitude-modulated current pulse trains in cochlear implantees. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  M. Dorman,et al.  Adaptation by a Cochlear-Implant Patient to Upward Shifts in the Frequency Representation of Speech , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[25]  Christopher Turner,et al.  Accuracy of Cochlear Implant Recipients on Pitch Perception, Melody Recognition, and Speech Reception in Noise , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[26]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  In Vivo Estimates of the Position of Advanced Bionics Electrode Arrays in the Human Cochlea , 2007, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[27]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate on Speech Recognition with Cochlear Implants , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[28]  Robert P. Carlyon,et al.  Extending the Limits of Place and Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[29]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing , 2008, Hearing Research.

[30]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Changes in Pitch with a Cochlear Implant Over Time , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[31]  Uwe Baumann,et al.  The cochlear implant electrode–pitch function , 2006, Hearing Research.

[32]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speech-coding strategy. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[33]  Brian C. J. Moore,et al.  Perception of Pitch by People with Cochlear Hearing Loss and by Cochlear Implant Users , 2005 .

[34]  L. Hickson,et al.  Music Perception of Cochlear Implant Users Compared with that of Hearing Aid Users , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[35]  B C Moore,et al.  Optimization of a slow-acting automatic gain control system for use in hearing aids. , 1991, British journal of audiology.

[36]  R. Shannon.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[37]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[38]  Leonid M Litvak,et al.  Use of “Phantom Electrode” Technique to Extend the Range of Pitches Available Through a Cochlear Implant , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[39]  Katrien Vermeire,et al.  Better Speech Recognition in Noise with the Fine Structure Processing Coding Strategy , 2010, ORL.

[40]  Andreas Büchner,et al.  Comparison of dual-time-constant and fast-acting automatic gain control (AGC) systems in cochlear implants , 2009, International journal of audiology.

[41]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Auditory Training with Spectrally Shifted Speech: Implications for Cochlear Implant Patient Auditory Rehabilitation , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[42]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Acoustic to Electric Pitch Comparisons in Cochlear Implant Subjects with Residual Hearing , 2006, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[43]  Jörn Ostermann,et al.  Signal Processing Strategies for Cochlear Implants Using Current Steering , 2011, EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process..

[44]  Peter Nopp,et al.  Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: An evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus , 2008, Hearing Research.

[45]  Andrew J Oxenham,et al.  Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[46]  Clemens Zierhofer,et al.  Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: Frequency-place functions and rate pitch , 2014, Hearing Research.

[47]  M. Westhofen,et al.  Emotional and analytic music perception in cochlear implant users after optimizing the speech processor , 2012, Acta oto-laryngologica.