An Electric Frequency-to-place Map for a Cochlear Implant Patient with Hearing in the Nonimplanted Ear

The aim of this study was to relate the pitch of high-rate electrical stimulation delivered to individual cochlear implant electrodes to electrode insertion depth and insertion angle. The patient (CH1) was able to provide pitch matches between electric and acoustic stimulation because he had auditory thresholds in his nonimplanted ear ranging between 30 and 60 dB HL over the range, 250 Hz to 8 kHz. Electrode depth and insertion angle were measured from high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of the patient’s temporal bones. The scans were used to create a 3D image volume reconstruction of the cochlea, which allowed visualization of electrode position within the scala. The method of limits was used to establish pitch matches between acoustic pure tones and electric stimulation (a 1,652-pps, unmodulated, pulse train). The pitch matching data demonstrated that, for insertion angles of greater than 450 degrees or greater than approximately 20 mm insertion depth, pitch saturated at approximately 420 Hz. From 20 to 15 mm insertion depth pitch estimates were about one-half octave lower than the Greenwood function. From 13 to 3 mm insertion depth the pitch estimates were approximately one octave lower than the Greenwood function. The pitch match for an electrode only 3.4 mm into the cochlea was 3,447 Hz. These data are consistent with other reports, e.g., Boëx et al. (2006), of a frequency-to-place map for the electrically stimulated cochlea in which perceived pitches for stimulation on individual electrodes are significantly lower than those predicted by the Greenwood function for stimulation at the level of the hair cell.

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

[2]  D. D. Greenwood A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  D H Burns,et al.  Orthogonal‐plane fluorescence optical sectioning: Three‐dimensional imaging of macroscopic biological specimens , 1993, Journal of microscopy.

[4]  M W Skinner,et al.  Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speech-coding strategy. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[5]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Reconstruction in Human Cochlear Maps: Measurement of the Lengths of Organ of Corti, Outer Wall, Inner Wall, and Rosenthal's Canal , 1996, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[6]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Pitch comparisons of acoustically and electrically evoked auditory sensations , 1996, Hearing Research.

[7]  M. Dorman,et al.  Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. , 1997, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  A. Faulkner,et al.  Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  R. Shannon,et al.  Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[10]  R. Hartmann,et al.  Electric-Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System , 1999, ORL.

[11]  R. Shannon,et al.  Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Richard A. Robb,et al.  The biomedical imaging resource at Mayo Clinic , 2001, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[13]  Chris James,et al.  Contralateral Masking in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Hearing in the Non-Implanted Ear , 2001, Audiology and Neurotology.

[14]  Qian-Jie Fu,et al.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[15]  M. Dorman,et al.  Adaptation by a Cochlear-Implant Patient to Upward Shifts in the Frequency Representation of Speech , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[16]  Teresa Y. C. Ching,et al.  Binaural Benefits for Adults Who Use Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants in Opposite Ears , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[17]  M. Dorman,et al.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. , 2004, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[18]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Acoustic to Electric Pitch Comparisons in Cochlear Implant Subjects with Residual Hearing , 2006, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[19]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Speech and melody recognition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing. , 2005, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  Bruce J Gantz,et al.  Preservation of Hearing in Cochlear Implant Surgery: Advantages of Combined Electrical and Acoustical Speech Processing , 2005, The Laryngoscope.

[21]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation of the Auditory System: Results of a Clinical Study , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[22]  A Frequency-Position Function for the Human Cochlear Spiral Ganglion , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.