Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.

This study quantified the accuracy with which populations of neurons in the auditory cortex can represent aspects of electrical cochlear stimuli presented through a cochlear implant. We tested the accuracy of coding of the place of stimulation (i.e., identification of the active stimulation channel) and of the stimulus current level. Physiological data came from the companion study, which recorded spike activity of neurons simultaneously from 16 sites along the tonotopic axis of the guinea pig's auditory cortex. In that study, cochlear electrical stimuli were presented to acutely deafened animals through a 6-electrode animal version of the 22-electrode Nucleus banded electrode array (Cochlear). Cochlear electrode configurations consisted of monopolar (MP), bipolar (BP + N) with N inactive electrodes between the active and return electrodes (0 < or = N < or = 3), tripolar (TP) with one active electrode and two flanking return electrodes, and common ground (CG) with one active electrode and as many as five return electrodes. In the present analysis, an artificial neural network was trained to recognize spatiotemporal patterns of cortical activity in response to single presentations of particular stimuli and, thereby, to identify those stimuli. The accuracy of pair-wise discrimination of stimulation channels or of current levels was represented by the discrimination index, d', where d' = 1 was taken as threshold. In many cases, the threshold for discrimination of place of cochlear stimulation was < 0.75 mm, and the threshold for discrimination of current levels was < 1 dB. Cochlear electrode configurations varied in the accuracy with which they signaled to the auditory cortex the place of cochlear stimulation. The BP + N and TP configurations provided considerably greater sensitivity to place of stimulation than did the MP configuration. The TP configuration maintained accurate signaling of place of stimulation up to the highest current levels, whereas sensitivity was degraded at high current levels in BP + N configurations. Electrode configurations also varied in the dynamic range over which they signaled stimulus current level. Dynamic ranges were widest for the BP + 0 configuration and narrowest for the TP configuration. That is, the configuration that showed the most accurate signaling of cochlear place of stimulation (TP) showed the most restricted dynamic range for signaling of current level. These results suggest that the choice of the optimal electrode configuration for use by human cochlear-prosthesis users would depend on the particular demands of the speech-processing strategy that is to be employed.

[1]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[3]  E. Weymuller,et al.  Management of Difficult Airway Problems with Percutaneous Transtracheal Ventilation , 1987, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[4]  B Efron,et al.  Statistical Data Analysis in the Computer Age , 1991, Science.

[5]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  John C Middlebrooks,et al.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. , 2002, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation , 1999, Hearing Research.

[8]  Shigeto Furukawa,et al.  Auditory Cortical Images of Tones and Noise Bands , 2000, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[9]  P J Blamey,et al.  Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli , 1990, Hearing Research.

[11]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Discrimination of Simultaneous Frequency and Level Changes in Electrical Stimuli , 1987 .

[12]  Howard B. Demuth,et al.  Neutral network toolbox for use with Matlab , 1995 .

[13]  Christopher R. Stambaugh,et al.  Simultaneous encoding of tactile information by three primate cortical areas , 1998, Nature Neuroscience.

[14]  D. M. Green,et al.  A panoramic code for sound location by cortical neurons. , 1994, Science.

[15]  Dirk Van Compernolle,et al.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Response of the primary auditory cortex to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in the congenitally deaf white cat , 1997, Hearing Research.

[17]  C E Schreiner,et al.  Neuronal responses in cat primary auditory cortex to electrical cochlear stimulation. III. Activation patterns in short- and long-term deafness. , 1999, Journal of neurophysiology.

[18]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[20]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .

[21]  F. Zeng,et al.  Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation , 1992, Hearing Research.

[22]  F G Zeng,et al.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[23]  R. Snyder,et al.  Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation in the neonatally deafened cat. I: Expansion of central representation , 1990, Hearing Research.

[24]  L M Collins,et al.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  B M Clopton,et al.  Effects of electrical current configuration on potential fields in the electrically stimulated cochlea: field models and measurements. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[26]  Leslie M Collins,et al.  Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants , 1999, Hearing Research.

[27]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Coding of Sound-Source Location by Ensembles of Cortical Neurons , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  G M Clark,et al.  Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  L M Collins,et al.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. , 1997, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  Rainer Hartmann,et al.  Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents , 1998, Hearing Research.

[31]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-Organization and Associative Memory , 1988 .

[32]  Teresa A. Zwolan,et al.  Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1997, Hearing Research.

[33]  J K Shallop,et al.  Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. , 1994, The American journal of otology.

[34]  G. A. Miller,et al.  An Analysis of Perceptual Confusions Among Some English Consonants , 1955 .

[35]  M Chatterjee Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  H J McDermott,et al.  The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[37]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Codes for sound-source location in nontonotopic auditory cortex. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[38]  P C Loizou,et al.  Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[39]  C S Throckmorton,et al.  Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.