Survey of selective electrode deactivation attitudes and practices by cochlear implant audiologists

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to explore clinician attitudes regarding selective electrode deactivation and to investigate the primary methodology used to identify poorly encoded electrodes, deactivate identified electrodes, and measure outcomes. METHODS An online survey consisting of 32 questions was administered to certified clinical and research cochlear implant (CI) audiologists. Questions asked participants about their demographic information, device programming patterns, and attitudes regarding selective electrode deactivation. RESULTS Fifty-four audiologists completed the survey. When asked whether they believed selectively deactivating poorly encoded electrodes could improve speech perception outcomes, 43% of respondents selected 'Probably Yes,' 39% selected 'Definitely Yes,' and 18% selected 'Might or Might Not.' Of those who reported deactivating electrodes as part of CI programming, various methodology was reported to identify and deactivate poorly encoding electrodes and evaluate effectiveness of deactivation. General reasons against deactivation were also reported. DISCUSSION CI audiologists generally believed selective electrode deactivation could be used to improve speech perception outcomes for patients; however, few reported implementing selective electrode deactivation in practice. Among those who do perform selective electrode deactivation, the reported methodology was highly variable. CONCLUSION These findings support the need for clinical practice guidelines to assist audiologists in performing selective electrode deactivation.

[1]  D. Gnansia,et al.  Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images , 2020, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[2]  R. Cowan,et al.  Cochlear implantation outcomes in adults: A scoping review , 2020, PloS one.

[3]  Jessica J. Messersmith,et al.  Clinical Practice Guidelines: Cochlear Implants , 2019, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  A. Parbery‐Clark,et al.  Assessing Cognitive Abilities in High-Performing Cochlear Implant Users , 2019, Front. Neurosci..

[5]  Mario A. Svirsky,et al.  Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes to improve speech perception: A computational approach , 2018, Hearing Research.

[6]  Jessica J. Messersmith,et al.  Cochlear Implant Practice Patterns: The U.S. Trends with Pediatric Patients , 2018, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[7]  Patrick Boyle,et al.  Development of electrophysiological and behavioural measures of electrode discrimination in adult cochlear implant users , 2018, Hearing Research.

[8]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Re-examining the relationship between number of cochlear implant channels and maximal speech intelligibility. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Patrick Boyle,et al.  Objective assessment of electrode discrimination with the auditory change complex in adult cochlear implant users , 2017, Hearing Research.

[10]  Ning Zhou,et al.  Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users. , 2017, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Tom Francart,et al.  Fitting prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance , 2017, International journal of audiology.

[12]  N. Deggouj,et al.  Is age a limiting factor for adaptation to cochlear implant? , 2016, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[13]  Benoit M. Dawant,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of an Image-Guided Cochlear Implant Programming Strategy , 2014, Audiology and Neurotology.

[14]  Bryan E Pfingst,et al.  Using Temporal Modulation Sensitivity to Select Stimulation Sites for Processor MAPs in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2013, Audiology and Neurotology.

[15]  L. Humes,et al.  Auditory and cognitive factors underlying individual differences in aided speech-understanding among older adults , 2013, Front. Syst. Neurosci..

[16]  A. Beynon,et al.  Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time , 2012, PloS one.

[17]  T. Bradham,et al.  Cochlear implant programming. , 2012, Otolaryngologic clinics of North America.

[18]  A. Wise,et al.  Spiral ganglion neuron survival and function in the deafened cochlea following chronic neurotrophic treatment , 2011, Hearing Research.

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

[20]  A. Geers,et al.  Estimating the influence of cochlear implantation on language development in children , 2007, Audiological medicine.

[21]  R. Dowell,et al.  Outcomes for cochlear implant users with significant residual hearing: implications for selection criteria in children. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[22]  D. Sladen,et al.  Programming, Care, and Troubleshooting of Cochlear Implants for Children , 2003 .

[23]  H. Teagle,et al.  An Introduction to Cochlear Implant Technology, Activation, and Programming. , 2002, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[24]  C M McKay,et al.  Optimizing electrode and filter selection in cochlear implant speech processor maps. , 2001, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[25]  P J Blamey,et al.  Variation In Speech Perception Scores Among Children with Cochlear Implants , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[26]  G. Clark,et al.  Electrode Discrimination and Speech Perception in Young Children Using Cochlear Implants , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[27]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  L M Collins,et al.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[30]  S. Savolainen,et al.  The cochlear nerve in various forms of deafness. , 1984, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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