Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.

The primary goal of this study was to examine electrophysiologic measures of channel interaction, electrode pitch discrimination ability using a pitch-ranking task, and behavioral threshold levels in individuals implanted with a straight electrode array versus a perimodiolar array. It was hypothesized that perimodiolar arrays should yield lower thresholds, less channel interaction as measured with the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), and better electrode pitch-ranking ability. Results from ten adult Nucleus 24 recipients (N=5 straight array, N=5 perimodiolar Contour array) showed no significant difference in threshold between the two electrode designs; however, there was significantly better electrode pitch-ranking ability and less channel interaction as measured with the ECAP for perimodiolar electrodes. Additionally, there was a significant positive correlation between behavioral threshold and width of the ECAP interaction function for Contour group data. There was no significant correlation between behavioral threshold and electrode pitch-ranking ability. These data suggest that electrode design and/or perimodiolar position may reduce physiologic channel interaction in the cochlea and improve electrode pitch discrimination ability; however, this positive finding did not translate into significantly better speech perception ability for Contour subjects.

[1]  Frank Rattay,et al.  A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. II. Influence of the three-dimensional cochlear structure on neural excitability , 2001, Hearing Research.

[2]  N. Cohen,et al.  Electrode to modiolus proximity: a fluoroscopic and histologic analysis. , 2000, The American journal of otology.

[3]  Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to electrical stimulation in the cat I. Absolute thresholds , 1994, Hearing Research.

[4]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration on threshold functions for electrical stimulation of the cochlea , 1995, Hearing Research.

[5]  P J Abbas,et al.  Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[6]  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.

[7]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Multichannel Place Pitch Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2004, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

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

[9]  J K Shallop,et al.  Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[10]  Jeroen J Briaire,et al.  Field patterns in a 3D tapered spiral model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 2000, Hearing Research.

[11]  R.L. White,et al.  The nerve-electrode interface of the cochlear implant: current spread , 1999, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[12]  N M Young,et al.  Comparison of Pediatric Clarion Recipients With and Without the Electrode Positioner , 2001, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[13]  G M Clark,et al.  Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical percepts following cochlear implantation. , 1998, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[14]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Psychophysical Evaluation of Cochlear Prostheses in a Monkey Model , 1979, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

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

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

[17]  Heather A. Kreft,et al.  Effects of pulse rate on threshold and dynamic range in Clarion cochlear-implant users. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[18]  G M Clark,et al.  The histopathology of the human temporal bone and auditory central nervous system following cochlear implantation in a patient. Correlation with psychophysics and speech perception results. , 1988, Acta oto-laryngologica. Supplementum.

[19]  J. Frijns,et al.  Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea , 1996, Hearing Research.

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

[21]  Elaine Saunders,et al.  Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array , 2001, Hearing Research.

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

[23]  Michael Tykocinski,et al.  Threshold, Comfortable Level and Impedance Changes as a Function of Electrode-Modiolar Distance , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[24]  B M Clopton,et al.  Effects of electrical current configuration on stimulus detection. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[25]  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.

[26]  Charles C. Finley,et al.  Models of Neural Responsiveness to Electrical Stimulation , 1990 .

[27]  Jennifer Arcaroli,et al.  The Nucleus® 24 Contour™ Cochlear Implant System: Adult Clinical Trial Results , 2002, Ear and hearing.

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

[29]  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.

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

[31]  D. W. Smith,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration on psychophysical strength-duration functions for single biphasic electrical stimuli in cats. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[32]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Across-species comparisons of psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: II. Strength-duration functions for single, biphasic pulses , 1999, Hearing Research.

[33]  Norbert Dillier,et al.  Measurement of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential via a Neural Response Telemetry System , 2002, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[34]  G. M. Clark,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: The effect of electrode position on neural excitation , 1993, Hearing Research.