The Importance of Human Cochlear Anatomy for the Results of Modiolus-Hugging Multichannel Cochlear Implants

Hypothesis The fact that the anatomy of the basal turn of the human cochlea, especially, is essentially different from that of other species is likely to influence the outcome of cochlear implantation. Background Multichannel cochlear implants give better speech understanding than single-channel devices. They are intended to make use of the tonotopic organization of the cochlea by selectively stimulating subpopulations of the auditory nerve. At higher stimulus levels and with monopolar stimulation, excitation of nerve fibers from other turns may interfere with this concept, especially with modiolus-hugging electrodes. Methods A three-dimensional spiraling computer model of the human cochlea, based on histologic data, was used to test the spatial selectivity and the dynamic range before cross-turn stimulation takes place for the Clarion HiFocus implant with and without a positioner. The results were compared with a similar model of the guinea pig cochlea. Results In humans (in contrast to the guinea pig), a well-designed modiolus-hugging electrode yielded reduced current thresholds and high spatial selectivity without reduction of the useful dynamic range. The apical turn of the human cochlea, however, is largely comparable in this respect with the guinea pig cochlea, where cross-turn stimulation reduces the dynamic range substantially. Conclusion The clinical success of cochlear implantation in humans and the favorable results with modiolus-hugging devices depend on the anatomy of the human cochlea.

[1]  W H Ko,et al.  The middle ear bioelectronic microphone for a totally implantable cochlear hearing device for profound and total hearing loss. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[2]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  Improving the accuracy of the boundary element method by the use of second-order interpolation functions [EEG modeling application] , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[3]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Field patterns in a 3D tapered spiral model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 2000, Hearing Research.

[4]  F. Rattay Analysis of models for extracellular fiber stimulation , 1989, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  J. Frijns,et al.  Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 1996, Hearing Research.

[6]  W. Arnold Myelination of the human spiral ganglion. , 1987, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[7]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Single fiber mapping of spatial excitation patterns in the electrically stimulated auditory nerve , 1987, Hearing Research.

[8]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Across-species comparisons of psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: II. Strength-duration functions for single, biphasic pulses , 1999, Hearing Research.

[9]  M Chatterjee Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[11]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  3D mesh generation to solve the electrical volume conduction problem in the implanted inner ear , 2000, Simul. Pract. Theory.

[12]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  Integrated use of volume conduction and neural models to simulate the response to cochlear implants , 2000, Simul. Pract. Theory.

[13]  S. B. Brummer,et al.  Electrochemical Considerations for Safe Electrical Stimulation of the Nervous System with Platinum Electrodes , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[14]  W Baumgartner,et al.  Intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. , 1999, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[15]  R. Schoonhoven,et al.  Potential distributions and neural excitation patterns in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 1995, Hearing Research.

[16]  G M Clark,et al.  Cochlear implants in the Third Millennium. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

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

[18]  Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.