Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants

The modern multi-channel cochlear implant is widely considered to be the most successful neural prosthesis owing to its ability to restore partial hearing to post-lingually deafened adults and to allow essentially normal language development in pre-lingually deafened children. However, the implant performance varies greatly in individuals and is still limited in background noise, tonal language understanding, and music perception. One main cause for the individual variability and the limited performance in cochlear implants is spatial channel interaction from the stimulating electrodes to the auditory nerve and brain. Here we systematically examined spatial channel interactions at the physical, physiological, and perceptual levels in the same five modern cochlear implant subjects. The physical interaction was examined using an electric field imaging technique, which measured the voltage distribution as a function of the electrode position in the cochlea in response to the stimulation of a single electrode. The physiological interaction was examined by recording electrically evoked compound action potentials as a function of the electrode position in response to the stimulation of the same single electrode position. The perceptual interactions were characterized by changes in detection threshold as well as loudness summation in response to in-phase or out-of-phase dual-electrode stimulation. To minimize potentially confounding effects of temporal factors on spatial channel interactions, stimulus rates were limited to 100 Hz or less in all measurements. Several quantitative channel interaction indexes were developed to define and compare the width, slope and symmetry of the spatial excitation patterns derived from these physical, physiological and perceptual measures. The electric field imaging data revealed a broad but uniformly asymmetrical intracochlear electric field pattern, with the apical side producing a wider half-width and shallower slope than the basal side. In contrast, the evoked compound action potential and perceptual channel interaction data showed much greater individual variability. It is likely that actual reduction in neural and higher level interactions, instead of simple sharpening of the electric current field, would be the key to predicting and hopefully improving the variable cochlear implant performance. The present results are obtained with auditory prostheses but can be applied to other neural prostheses, in which independent spatial channels, rather than a high stimulation rate, are critical to their performance.

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

[2]  Gene Y. Fridman,et al.  Vestibulo-Ocular Reflex Responses to a Multichannel Vestibular Prosthesis Incorporating a 3D Coordinate Transformation for Correction of Misalignment , 2010, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[3]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[4]  Zachary M. Smith,et al.  Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception , 2002, Nature.

[5]  Frank Rattay,et al.  A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron I. Contribution of neural substructures to the generation and propagation of spikes , 2001, Hearing Research.

[6]  Leonid M. Litvak,et al.  Current focusing and steering: Modeling, physiology, and psychophysics , 2008, Hearing Research.

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

[8]  R V Shannon,et al.  Loudness-coding mechanisms inferred from electric stimulation of the human auditory system. , 1994, Science.

[9]  Johan Frijns,et al.  The Facial Nerve Canal: An Important Cochlear Conduction Path Revealed by Clarion Electrical Field Imaging , 2004, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[10]  R. Patterson,et al.  The deterioration of hearing with age: frequency selectivity, the critical ratio, the audiogram, and speech threshold. , 1982, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[12]  W. Rutten Selective electrical interfaces with the nervous system. , 2002, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[13]  R. Shannon Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants , 1985, Hearing Research.

[14]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and Evaluation , 2008, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

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

[16]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Xianghong Arakaki,et al.  Modulation of neuronal activity and plasma membrane properties with low-power millimeter waves in organotypic cortical slices , 2010, Journal of neural engineering.

[18]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  D. McCreery,et al.  Cochlear nucleus auditory prostheses , 2008, Hearing Research.

[20]  James Weiland,et al.  Artificial vision: needs, functioning, and testing of a retinal electronic prosthesis. , 2009, Progress in brain research.

[21]  Gail S Donaldson,et al.  Within-Subjects Comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 Speech Processing Strategies: Speech Perception and Its Relation to Place-Pitch Sensitivity , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[22]  J. C. Middlebrooks,et al.  Auditory Prosthesis with a Penetrating Nerve Array , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[23]  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.

[24]  W. Grill,et al.  The effect of stimulus pulse duration on selectivity of neural stimulation , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[25]  B. Moore Dead Regions in the Cochlea: Conceptual Foundations, Diagnosis, and Clinical Applications , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[26]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

[27]  Belinda A Henry,et al.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  C. Jolly,et al.  Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[29]  Jay T Rubinstein An introduction to the biophysics of the electrically evoked compound action potential. , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[30]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation , 2010, Hearing Research.

[31]  Elaine Saunders,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[32]  Filiep Vanpoucke,et al.  Identification of the impedance model of an implanted cochlear prosthesis from intracochlear potential measurements , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[33]  W. W. Clark,et al.  Animal Model for the 4-kHz Tonal Dip , 1978, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[34]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Users Evaluated Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[35]  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.

[36]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Identifying Cochlear Implant Channels With Poor Electrode-Neuron Interfaces: Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses Measured With the Partial Tripolar Configuration , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[37]  Johan H M Frijns,et al.  A new method for dealing with the stimulus artefact in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[38]  Julie Arenberg Bierer,et al.  Probing the Electrode-Neuron Interface With Focused Cochlear Implant Stimulation , 2010 .

[39]  Monita Chatterjee,et al.  Across- and Within-Channel Envelope Interactions in Cochlear Implant Listeners , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[40]  B. Pesaran,et al.  Cognitive neural prosthetics , 2004, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  J. B. Ranck,et al.  Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: A review , 1975, Brain Research.

[42]  R. Cowan,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking , 2003, Hearing Research.

[43]  Warren M. Grill,et al.  Selection of stimulus parameters for deep brain stimulation , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[44]  I.C. Bruce,et al.  The effects of stochastic neural activity in a model predicting intensity perception with cochlear implants: low-rate stimulation , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[45]  M. Pelizzone,et al.  Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects , 2003, Hearing Research.

[46]  John J. Galvin,et al.  Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve , 1998, Neuroreport.

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

[48]  Blake S Wilson,et al.  Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. , 2003, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[49]  H J McDermott,et al.  Loudness summation for two channels of stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of spatial and temporal separation. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[50]  Clemens Zierhofer,et al.  Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array , 2009, Biomedical engineering online.

[51]  Kevin H. Franck,et al.  Electrode Interaction in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Subjects , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[52]  Kevin H Franck,et al.  Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Amplitude Growth Functions and HiResolution Programming Levels in Pediatric CII Implant Subjects , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[53]  R. Schoonhoven,et al.  Potential distributions and neural excitation patterns in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 1995, Hearing Research.

[54]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear , 2005, Hearing Research.

[55]  Leslie M. Collins,et al.  Predicting dynamic range and intensity discrimination for electrical pulse-train stimuli using a stochastic auditory nerve model: the effects of stimulus noise , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[56]  Colleen Psarros,et al.  Speech Recognition with the Nucleus 24 SPEAK, ACE, and CIS Speech Coding Strategies in Newly Implanted Adults , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[57]  R. Andersen,et al.  Cognitive neural prosthetics. , 2010, Annual review of psychology.

[58]  Philipos C. Loizou,et al.  Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions , 2006, Hearing Research.

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

[60]  Carolyn J Brown,et al.  Electrically evoked brainstem potentials in cochlear implant patients with multi-electrode stimulation , 1988, Hearing Research.

[61]  Joseph T. Walsh,et al.  Optical Parameter Variability in Laser Nerve Stimulation: A Study of Pulse Duration, Repetition Rate, and Wavelength , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[62]  Paul J Abbas,et al.  Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[63]  G M Clark,et al.  The Contour Electrode Array: Safety Study and Initial Patient Trials of a New Perimodiolar Design , 2001, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[65]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Intensity Coding in Electric Hearing: Effects of Electrode Configurations and Stimulation Waveforms , 2011, Ear and hearing.

[66]  F. Zeng Trends in Cochlear Implants , 2004, Trends in amplification.

[67]  Paul J Abbas,et al.  The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[68]  P. Peckham,et al.  Functional electrical stimulation for neuromuscular applications. , 2005, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[69]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Psychophysical recovery from single-pulse forward masking in electric hearing. , 2001, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[70]  J Holsheimer,et al.  Electrode alignment of transverse tripoles using a percutaneous triple-lead approach in spinal cord stimulation , 2011, Journal of neural engineering.

[71]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Channel interactions in patients using the Ineraid multichannel cochlear implant , 1993, Hearing Research.