Template Subtraction to Remove CI Stimulation Artifacts in Auditory Steady-State Responses in CI Subjects

Cochlear implant (CI) stimulation artifacts are currently removed from electrically evoked steady-state response (EASSR) measurements based on a linear interpolation (LI) over the artifact-contaminated signal parts. LI is only successful if CI stimulation artifacts are shorter than the interpulse interval, i.e., for contralateral channels and stimulation pulse rates up to 500 pulses per second (pps). The objective of this paper is to develop and evaluate a template subtraction (TS) method to remove continuous CI stimulation artifacts in order to accurately measure EASSRs. The template construction (TC) is based on an EEG recording containing CI stimulation artifacts but no synchronous neural response. The constructed templates are subtracted from the recording of interest. Response amplitudes and latencies are compared for the TS and LI method, and for different TC durations. The response amplitudes and latencies in contralateral channels are the same after TS and LI, as expected. In ipsilateral channels, response amplitudes and latencies are within the expected range only after TS. The TC duration can be reduced from 5 min to 1 min without a significant effect on response latency. TS with a TC duration of only 1 min allows to remove all CI stimulation artifacts in individual contra- and ipsilateral EEG recording channels.

[1]  M. Dorman,et al.  Minimization of cochlear implant stimulus artifact in cortical auditory evoked potentials , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[2]  P J Abbas,et al.  The Relationship Between EAP and EABR Thresholds and Levels Used to Program the Nucleus 24 Speech Processor: Data from Adults , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[3]  B. Martin,et al.  Can the acoustic change complex be recorded in an individual with a cochlear implant? Separating neural responses from cochlear implant artifact. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  R. Dobie,et al.  Amplitude-modulation following response (AMFR): Effects of modulation rate, carrier frequency, age, and state , 1993, Hearing Research.

[5]  Blake C Papsin,et al.  Bilateral input protects the cortex from unilaterally-driven reorganization in children who are deaf. , 2013, Brain : a journal of neurology.

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

[7]  T. Picton,et al.  A method for removing cochlear implant artifact , 2010, Hearing Research.

[8]  Daniel D. E. Wong,et al.  Beamformer Suppression of Cochlear Implant Artifacts in an Electroencephalography Dataset , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[9]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear implant artifact attenuation in late auditory evoked potentials: A single channel approach , 2013, Hearing Research.

[10]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Characterization of cochlear implant artifacts in electrically evoked auditory steady-state responses , 2017, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[11]  Michael Dorman,et al.  Cortical development, plasticity and re-organization in children with cochlear implants. , 2009, Journal of communication disorders.

[12]  M. Dorman,et al.  A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[13]  R A Dobie,et al.  A comparison of t test, F test, and coherence methods of detecting steady-state auditory-evoked potentials, distortion-product otoacoustic emissions, or other sinusoids. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[14]  M. Dorman,et al.  Cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants , 2008, Brain Research.

[15]  H. Hotelling.  The Generalization of Student’s Ratio , 1931 .

[16]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Improved Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady-State Response Thresholds in Humans , 2012, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[17]  Maarten De Vos,et al.  Semi-automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials , 2012, Hearing Research.

[18]  Norma Castañeda-Villa,et al.  Independent Component Analysis for Auditory Evoked Potentials and Cochlear Implant Artifact Estimation , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Auditory steady-state responses in cochlear implant users: Effect of modulation frequency and stimulation artifacts , 2016, Hearing Research.

[20]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Sound Coding in Cochlear Implants: From electric pulses to hearing , 2015, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine.

[21]  Marc Moonen,et al.  Cochlear implant artifact rejection in electrically evoked auditory steady state responses , 2014, 2014 22nd European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO).

[22]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Comparison of EAP Thresholds with MAP Levels in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant: Data from Children , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Can ECAP Measures Be Used for Totally Objective Programming of Cochlear Implants? , 2013, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  T. Picton,et al.  Human auditory steady-state responses: Respuestas auditivas de estado estable en humanos , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[25]  Wael El-Deredy,et al.  Electrically evoked compound action potential artifact rejection by independent component analysis: Technique validation☆ , 2013, Hearing Research.

[26]  D. Irvine,et al.  Cochlear implants and brain plasticity , 2002, Hearing Research.

[27]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Steady State Responses in Cochlear Implant Users , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[28]  Jay T. Rubinstein,et al.  Characteristics of stimulus artifacts in EEG recordings induced by electrical stimulation of cochlear implants , 2010, 2010 3rd International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics.

[29]  Carolyn J. Brown,et al.  Sensitivity and Specificity of Averaged Electrode Voltage Measures in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[30]  M. Dorman,et al.  Deprivation-induced cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants , 2007, International journal of audiology.

[31]  James B. Fallon,et al.  A novel stimulus artifact removal technique for high-rate electrical stimulation , 2008, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[32]  Masaru Aoyagi,et al.  Optimal modulation frequency for amplitude-modulation following response in young children during sleep , 1993, Hearing Research.