Efficacy of a Cochlear Implant Simultaneous Analog Stimulation Strategy Coupled with a Monopolar Electrode Configuration

Objectives: The present study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and clinical feasibility of using monopolar stimulation with the Clarion Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS) strategy in patients with cochlear implants. Methods: Speech recognition by 10 Clarion cochlear implant users was evaluated by means of 4 different speech processing strategy/electrode configuration combinations; ie, SAS and Continuous Interleaved Sampling (CIS) strategies were each used with monopolar (MP) and bipolar (BP) electrode configurations. The test measures included consonants, vowels, consonant-nucleus-consonant words, and Hearing in Noise Test sentences with a +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio. Additionally, subjective judgments of sound quality were obtained for each strategy/configuration combination. Results: All subjects but 1 demonstrated open-set speech recognition with the SAS/MP combination. The group mean Hearing in Noise Test sentence score for the SAS/MP combination was 31.6% (range, 0% to 92%) correct, as compared to 25.0%, 46.7%, and 37.8% correct for the CIS/BP, CIS/MP, and SAS/BP combinations, respectively. Intersubject variability was high, and there were no significant differences in mean speech recognition scores or mean preference ratings among the 4 strategy/configuration combinations tested. Individually, the best speech recognition performance was with the subject's everyday strategy/configuration combination in 72% of the applicable cases. If the everyday strategy was excluded from the analysis, the subjects performed best with the SAS/MP combination in 37.5% of the remaining cases. Conclusions: The SAS processing strategy with an MP electrode configuration gave reasonable speech recognition in most subjects, even though subjects had minimal previous experience with this strategy/configuration combination. The SAS/MP combination might be particularly appropriate for patients for whom a full dynamic range of electrical hearing could not be achieved with a BP configuration.

[1]  B J Gantz,et al.  Initial Independent Results with the Clarion Cochlear Implant , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Teresa A. Zwolan,et al.  Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1997, Hearing Research.

[3]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[4]  S A Telian,et al.  Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. , 1996, The American journal of otology.

[5]  R. Battmer,et al.  Experience with the cochlear miniature speech processor in adults and children together with a comparison of unipolar and bipolar modes. , 1992, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.

[6]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Simultaneous Analog Stimulation (SAS)–Continuous Interleaved Sampler (CIS) Pilot Comparison Study in Europe , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[7]  L. Mens,et al.  Speech processing strategy preferences among 55 European CLARION cochlear implant users , 2001, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[8]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Cortical Responses to Cochlear Implant Stimulation: Channel Interactions , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[9]  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.

[10]  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.

[11]  J. Hillenbrand,et al.  Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Relative contributions of spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  Li Xu,et al.  Effects of Electrode Configuration and Place of Stimulation on Speech Perception with Cochlear Prostheses , 2000, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[14]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  Performance with the 20 + 2L lateral wall cochlear implant. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[16]  Philipos C Loizou,et al.  Comparison of Speech Processing Strategies Used in the Clarion Implant Processor , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[17]  B J Gantz,et al.  Performance over time of adult patients using the Ineraid or nucleus cochlear implant. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  Adult Cochlear Implant Patient Performance with Evolving Electrode Technology , 2001, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[19]  R V Shannon,et al.  Consonant recordings for speech testing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  D. Eddington.  Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  M W Skinner,et al.  Identification of speech by cochlear implant recipients with the multipeak (MPEAK) and spectral peak (SPEAK) speech coding strategies II. Consonants. , 1996, Ear and hearing.

[22]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  Blake S. Wilson,et al.  Engineering Design of Cochlear Implants , 2004 .

[26]  G. E. Peterson,et al.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. , 1962, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[27]  N. Cohen,et al.  Cochlear Implants , 2019, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Human Communication Sciences and Disorders.

[28]  T. Lenarz,et al.  Place-pitch and speech perception measures with bipolar and monopolar electrical stimulation of the cochlea. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[29]  M. J. Osberger,et al.  SAS-CIS Preference Study in Postlingually Deafened Adults Implanted with the Clarion® Cochlear Implant , 1999, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[30]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[31]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Variation in Detection Thresholds and Maximum Comfortable Loudness Levels for Cochlear Implants , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.