The Effect of Pulse Shape and Interphase Gaps on Speech Perception and Perceived Sound Quality in Electrical Hearing

Background: Stimulation with triphasic pulses has been shown to reduce the occurrence of unwanted facial nerve stimulation (FNS) with cochlear implants (CIs). However, there is little data available on how different pulse shapes affect the hearing outcome with electrical hearing in general. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of different stimulation pulse shapes on speech perception in noise, as well as loudness perception and subjective sound quality. Methods: Twenty experienced cochlear-implant users not suffering from FNS participated in a prospective single-visit study. Based on the subjects’ current clinical fitting, six fitting maps with different pulse shapes (biphasic and triphasic) and different interphase gap (IPG) durations (2.1 µs, 10 µs, and 20 µs) were created. First, the loudness was balanced for each configuration by adjusting the stimulation charge amount. Then, speech perception in noise was measured with a German matrix sentence test (Oldenburg Sentence test). The perception of particular sound attributes of speech and music, as well as overall preference, was evaluated with visual analog scales. Results: Similar levels of speech perception were obtained with triphasic stimulation (P = 0.891) and longer IPGs (P = 0.361) compared to the subjects’ clinical map settings. The stimulation amplitudes for equal loudness were significantly higher with triphasic stimulation compared to biphasic stimulation when keeping the IPG constant. Increasing the IPG had a significantly larger effect on perceived loudness (P < 0.0001) and charge reduction for equal loudness with triphasic pulses compared to biphasic pulses. Triphasic configuration showed lower overall subjective sound quality ratings than biphasic for speech intelligibility, clarity, naturalness, and overall preference, as well as for music naturalness, and overall preference in the acute setting without adaptation time. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons against the clinical map revealed significantly lower speech naturalness ratings for triphasic with 2.1 µs IPG and for triphasic with 20 µs IPG only. Conclusion: Although some sound quality attributes were rated lower compared to the clinical map in the acute test setting, stimulation with triphasic pulses does not affect speech perception in noise and can be considered as a valuable option in CI fitting.

[1]  Medhat F Yousef,et al.  Performance of cochlear implant recipients fitted with triphasic pulse patterns , 2020, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[2]  A. Bahmer,et al.  Loudness Perception and Dynamic Range Depending on Interphase Gaps of Biphasic Pulses in Cochlear Implants , 2020, Ear and hearing.

[3]  H. Löwenheim,et al.  Triphasic Pulses in Cochlear Implant Patients With Facial Nerve Stimulation. , 2019, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  U. Baumann,et al.  Preventing Facial Nerve Stimulation by Triphasic Pulse Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Users: Intraoperative Recordings. , 2017, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[5]  U. Baumann,et al.  The Underlying Mechanism of Preventing Facial Nerve Stimulation by Triphasic Pulse Stimulation in Cochlear Implant Users Assessed With Objective Measure , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[6]  Alexandra Kaider,et al.  FS4, FS4-p, and FSP: A 4-Month Crossover Study of 3 Fine Structure Sound-Coding Strategies , 2014, Ear and hearing.

[7]  U. Baumann,et al.  Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: I. Amplitude growth functions , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[8]  L. Bruschini,et al.  Facial nerve stimulation after cochlear implantation: our experience , 2011, Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale.

[9]  R. K. Kalkman,et al.  Stimulation of the Facial Nerve by Intracochlear Electrodes in Otosclerosis: A Computer Modeling Study , 2009, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation , 2005, Hearing Research.

[11]  D. Proops,et al.  Cochlear Implantation in 53 Patients with Otosclerosis: Demographics, Computed Tomographic Scanning, Surgery, and Complications , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[12]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Speech recognition with a cochlear implant using triphasic charge-balanced pulses , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[13]  H. Djalilian,et al.  Resolution of Facial Stimulation in Otosclerotic Cochlear Implants , 2003, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[14]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  The perceptual effects of interphase gap duration in cochlear implant stimulation , 2003, Hearing Research.

[15]  J K Shallop,et al.  Facial nerve stimulation after Nucleus 22-channel cochlear implantation. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[16]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Facial Nerve Stimulation with Cochlear Implantation , 1991 .