Channel interactions in patients using the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant

Electrode interactions were investigated on two totally deaf patients fitted with the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant. Currents were applied to the most apical electrode (the 'perturbation' electrode) and their effects on psychophysical thresholds on the other electrodes (the 'test' electrodes) of the intracochlear array were studied. Two experimental protocols were used. In experiment I, we used a detection protocol to study how the perception of signals presented on each test electrode was affected by subthreshold, simultaneous or non-simultaneous stimulation of the perturbation electrode. Strong electrode interactions were observed with simultaneous stimulation and monotonically decreased as a function of electrode separation. Electrode interactions were weak with non-simultaneous stimulation. In experiment II, we used a discrimination protocol to study how the perception of signals presented on the test electrode was affected by suprathreshold, non-simultaneous stimulation of the perturbation electrode. Subjects could discriminate stimulation of 'perturbation+test' versus 'perturbation alone' when the level of stimulation on the test electrode was near threshold. These results demonstrate that strong electrode interactions in the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant system are generated by electrical field summation due to simultaneous stimulation of different electrodes, and that one can reduce electrode interactions by sequential activation of the electrodes. These observations might help to understand basic phenomena underlying recent significant improvements in speech recognition scores when switching from simultaneous to interleaved pulsatile stimulation in patients wearing the same cochlear implant system (Wilson et al., 1991).

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

[2]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction , 1983, Hearing Research.

[3]  M F Dorman,et al.  Word recognition by 50 patients fitted with the Symbion multichannel cochlear implant. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[5]  M M Merzenich,et al.  Multichannel cochlear implants. Channel interactions and processor design. , 1984, Archives of otolaryngology.

[6]  G M Clark,et al.  Two-component hearing sensations produced by two-electrode stimulation in the cochlea of a deaf patient. , 1983, Science.

[7]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[8]  R. Schlauch,et al.  Two-, three-, and four-interval forced-choice staircase procedures: estimator bias and efficiency. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  F B Simmons,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. , 1966, Archives of otolaryngology.

[10]  W. Dobelle,et al.  Auditory Prostheses Research with Multiple Channel Intracochlear Stimulation in Man , 1978, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[11]  G M Clark,et al.  Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  D. Eddington Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear implants. , 1979, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  M Pelizzone,et al.  Geneva experience with the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant. , 1992, ORL; journal for oto-rhino-laryngology and its related specialties.