Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces: Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses Measured With the Partial Tripolar Configuration

Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare cochlear implant behavioral measures and electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses (EABRs) obtained with a spatially focused electrode configuration. It has been shown previously that channels with high thresholds, when measured with the tripolar configuration, exhibit relatively broad psychophysical tuning curves. The elevated threshold and degraded spatial/spectral selectivity of such channels are consistent with a poor electrode-neuron interface, defined as suboptimal electrode placement or reduced nerve survival. However, the psychophysical methods required to obtain these data are time intensive and may not be practical during a clinical mapping session, especially for young children. Here, we have extended the previous investigation to determine whether a physiological approach could provide a similar assessment of channel functionality. We hypothesized that, in accordance with the perceptual measures, higher EABR thresholds would correlate with steeper EABR amplitude growth functions, reflecting a degraded electrode-neuron interface. Design: Data were collected from six cochlear implant listeners implanted with the HiRes 90k cochlear implant (Advanced Bionics). Single-channel thresholds and most comfortable listening levels were obtained for stimuli that varied in presumed electrical field size by using the partial tripolar configuration, for which a fraction of current (&sgr;) from a center active electrode returns through two neighboring electrodes and the remainder through a distant indifferent electrode. EABRs were obtained in each subject for the two channels having the highest and lowest tripolar (&sgr; = 1 or 0.9) behavioral threshold. Evoked potentials were measured with both the monopolar (&sgr; = 0) and a more focused partial tripolar (&sgr; ≥ 0.50) configuration. Results: Consistent with previous studies, EABR thresholds were highly and positively correlated with behavioral thresholds obtained with both the monopolar and partial tripolar configurations. The Wave V amplitude growth functions with increasing stimulus level showed the predicted effect of shallower growth for the partial tripolar than for the monopolar configuration, but this was observed only for the low-threshold channels. In contrast, high-threshold channels showed the opposite effect; steeper growth functions were seen for the partial tripolar configuration. Conclusions: These results suggest that behavioral thresholds or EABRs measured with a restricted stimulus can be used to identify potentially impaired cochlear implant channels. Channels having high thresholds and steep growth functions would likely not activate the appropriate spatially restricted region of the cochlea, leading to suboptimal perception. As a clinical tool, quick identification of impaired channels could lead to patient-specific mapping strategies and result in improved speech and music perception.

[1]  E. Truy,et al.  Electrophysiological Findings in Two Bilateral Cochlear Implant Cases: Does the Duration of Deafness Affect Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses? , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[2]  Patrick Breheny,et al.  Multivariate predictors of music perception and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users. , 2008, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  M. Merzenich,et al.  Multielectrode intracochlear implants. Nerve survival and stimulation patterns. , 1977, Archives of otolaryngology.

[5]  Darren M. Whiten,et al.  Histopathology of human cochlear implants: Correlation of psychophysical and anatomical measures , 2005, Hearing Research.

[6]  J. Nadol,et al.  Histopathology of the inner ear relevant to cochlear implantation. , 2006, Advances in oto-rhino-laryngology.

[7]  G. M. Clark,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: The effect of electrode position on neural excitation , 1993, Hearing Research.

[8]  B. Moore,et al.  The Use of Psychophysical Tuning Curves to Explore Dead Regions in the Cochlea , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[9]  F. B. Simmons,et al.  Estimating Eighth Nerve Survival by Electrical Stimulation , 1983, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[10]  R. Snyder,et al.  Degradation of temporal resolution in the auditory midbrain after prolonged deafness is reversed by electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  R. Hall,et al.  Estimation of surviving spiral ganglion cells in the deaf rat using the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response , 1990, Hearing Research.

[12]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system , 2008, Hearing Research.

[13]  Charles A. Miller,et al.  The use of long-duration current pulses to assess nerve survival , 1994, Hearing Research.

[14]  N. Kraus,et al.  Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[15]  Jian Yu,et al.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners. , 2010, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  C. Jolly,et al.  Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  P J Abbas,et al.  Multivariate Predictors of Audiological Success with Multichannel Cochlear Implants , 1993, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[18]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Probing the Electrode-Neuron Interface With Focused Cochlear Implant Stimulation , 2010, Trends in amplification.

[19]  Joshua H. Goldwyn,et al.  Modeling the electrode–neuron interface of cochlear implants: Effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration , 2010, Hearing Research.

[20]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Speech Perception with Mono- and Quadrupolar Electrode Configurations: A Crossover Study , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[21]  Michelle L Hughes,et al.  Psychophysical Versus Physiological Spatial Forward Masking and the Relation to Speech Perception in Cochlear Implants , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[22]  R R Marsh,et al.  Effect of Site of Stimulation on the Guinea Pig's Electrically Evoked Brain Stem Response , 1981, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[23]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Threshold Variation in Cochlear Implants: Relation to Speech Recognition , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[24]  Anthony J Spahr,et al.  Loudness growth observed under partially tripolar stimulation: model and data from cochlear implant listeners. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels with Poor Electrode-Neuron Interface: Partial Tripolar, Single-Channel Thresholds and Psychophysical Tuning Curves , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[26]  J. Fayad,et al.  Histopathologic Assessment of Fibrosis and nEw Bone Formation in Implanted Human Temporal Bones Using 3D Reconstruction , 2009, Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery.

[27]  Robert K Shepherd,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status , 1997, Hearing Research.

[28]  Robert K Shepherd,et al.  Long‐term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[29]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[31]  Carolyn J. Brown,et al.  Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response: Growth of response with current level , 1991, Hearing Research.

[32]  G M Clark,et al.  Differential electrical excitation of the auditory nerve. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[33]  P J Abbas,et al.  The Relationship Between EAP and EABR Thresholds and Levels Used to Program the Nucleus 24 Speech Processor: Data from Adults , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[34]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  HiResolutionTM and Conventional Sound Processing in the HiResolutionTM Bionic Ear: Using Appropriate Outcome Measures to Assess Speech Recognition Ability , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.