The multichannel auditory brainstem implant: how many electrodes make sense?

OBJECT Development of multichannel auditory brainstem implant (ABI) systems has been based in part on the assumption that audiological outcome can be optimized by increasing the number of available electrodes. In this paper the authors critically analyze this assumption on the basis of a retrospective clinical study performed using the Nucleus 22 ABI surface electrode array. METHODS The perceptual performances of 61 patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2 were tested approximately 6 weeks after an eight-electrode ABI had been implanted. Of eight implanted electrodes 5.57 +/- 2.57 (mean +/- standard deviation [SD] provided auditory sensations when stimulated. Electrodes were deactivated when stimulation resulted in significant nonauditory side effects or no auditory sensation at all, and also when they failed to provide distinctive pitch sensations. The mean (+/- SD) scores for patients with ABIs were the following: sound-only consonant recognition, 20.4 +/- 14.3 (range 0-65%); vowel recognition, 28.8 +/- 18% (range 0-67%); Monosyllable Trochee Spondee (MTS) word recognition 41.1 +/- 25.3% (range 0-100%); and sentence recognition, 5.3 +/- 11.4% (range 0-64%). Performance in patients in whom between one and three electrodes provided auditory sensation was significantly poorer than that in patients with between four and eight functional electrodes in the vowel, MTS word, and City University of New York (CUNY) sentence recognition tests. The correlation between performance and electrode number did not reach the 0.05 level of significance with respect to the sound effect, consonant, and MTS stress-pattern recognition tests, probably because a satisfactory performance in these tests can be obtained only with temporal cues, that is, without any information about the frequency of the sounds. In the MTS word and the CUNY sentence recognition tests, performance was optimal in the patients with eight functional electrodes. Although all top performers had more than three functional auditory electrodes, no further improvement (asymptotic performance) was seen in those with five or more active electrodes in the consonant, vowel, and sound effect recognition tests. CONCLUSIONS A minimum of three spectral channels, programmed in the appropriate individual tonotopic order seem to be required for satisfactory speech recognition in most patients with ABI. Due to the limited access to the tonotopic frequency gradient of the cochlear nucleus with surface stimulation, patients with ABI do not receive a wide range of spectral cues (frequency information) with multielectrode (> 5) surface arrays.

[1]  G. Bredberg,et al.  Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication performance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel-implanted patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[2]  M. Dorman,et al.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[4]  R. Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  M Nagafuchi,et al.  Intelligibility of distorted speech sounds shifted in frequency and time in normal children. , 1976, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[6]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  D T Lawson,et al.  New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. , 1993, Progress in brain research.

[8]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  P R Kileny,et al.  Effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the Cochlear Corporation multichannel implant. , 1992, The American journal of otology.

[10]  P Seligman,et al.  Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[11]  R V Shannon,et al.  The Multichannel Auditory Brain Stem Implant: Performance in Twenty Patients , 1998, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[12]  Holmes Ae,et al.  The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech perception. , 1987 .

[13]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Factors Predicting Postoperative Sentence Scores in Postlinguistically Deaf Adult Cochlear Implant Patients , 1992, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[14]  Robert V Shannon,et al.  Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. , 2002, Journal of neurosurgery.

[15]  J J Hanekom,et al.  Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[17]  C W Turner,et al.  Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  S. Rosen Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. , 1992, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  H J McDermott,et al.  A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  N. P. Erber,et al.  Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. , 1976, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[21]  M Dorman,et al.  Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[22]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  R V Shannon,et al.  Speech Recognition with Primarily Temporal Cues , 1995, Science.