Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.

The study examined whether the benefit of deactivating stimulation sites estimated to have broad neural excitation was attributed to improved spectral resolution in cochlear implant users. The subjects' spatial neural excitation pattern was estimated by measuring low-rate detection thresholds across the array [see Zhou (2016). PLoS One 11, e0165476]. Spectral resolution, as assessed by spectral-ripple discrimination thresholds, significantly improved after deactivation of five high-threshold sites. The magnitude of improvement in spectral-ripple discrimination thresholds predicted the magnitude of improvement in speech reception thresholds after deactivation. Results suggested that a smaller number of relatively independent channels provide a better outcome than using all channels that might interact.

[1]  Jong Ho Won,et al.  Spectral-Ripple Resolution Correlates with Speech Reception in Noise in Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[3]  Benoit M Dawant,et al.  Results of Postoperative, CT-based, Electrode Deactivation on Hearing in Prelingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users. , 2011, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  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.

[6]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  David M Landsberger,et al.  The development of a modified spectral ripple test. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Lucas H M Mens,et al.  Current Steering and Current Focusing in Cochlear Implants: Comparison of Monopolar, Tripolar, and Virtual Channel Electrode Configurations , 2008, Ear and hearing.

[9]  Chris van den Honert,et al.  Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  J. Firszt,et al.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani , 2016, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[11]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Noise Susceptibility of Cochlear Implant Users: The Role of Spectral Resolution and Smearing , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[13]  Ian C. Bruce,et al.  Temporal Considerations for Stimulating Spiral Ganglion Neurons with Cochlear Implants , 2016, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[14]  J. Nadol,et al.  Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[15]  Arthur Boothroyd,et al.  A sentence test of speech perception: reliability, set equivalence, and short term learning , 1985 .

[16]  Christopher J. Long,et al.  Multipolar current focusing increases spectral resolution in cochlear implants , 2013, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC).

[17]  Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to spatial selectivity. , 2016, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  Colette M McKay,et al.  Forward masking as a method of measuring place specificity of neural excitation in cochlear implants: a review of methods and interpretation. , 2012, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Ning Zhou Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition , 2016, PloS one.

[20]  Psychophysical Assessment of Spatial Spread of Excitation in Electrical Hearing with Single and Dual Electrode Contact Maskers , 2006, Ear and hearing.

[21]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Examining the Electro-Neural Interface of Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychophysics, CT Scans, and Speech Understanding , 2014, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.