The consequences of neural degeneration regarding optimal cochlear implant position in scala tympani: A model approach

Cochlear implant research endeavors to optimize the spatial selectivity, threshold and dynamic range with the objective of improving the speech perception performance of the implant user. One of the ways to achieve some of these goals is by electrode design. New cochlear implant electrode designs strive to bring the electrode contacts into close proximity to the nerve fibers in the modiolus: this is done by placing the contacts on the medial side of the array and positioning the implant against the medial wall of scala tympani. The question remains whether this is the optimal position for a cochlea with intact neural fibers and, if so, whether it is also true for a cochlea with degenerated neural fibers. In this study a computational model of the implanted human cochlea is used to investigate the optimal position of the array with respect to threshold, dynamic range and spatial selectivity for a cochlea with intact nerve fibers and for degenerated nerve fibers. In addition, the model is used to evaluate the predictive value of eCAP measurements for obtaining peri-operative information on the neural status. The model predicts improved threshold, dynamic range and spatial selectivity for the peri-modiolar position at the basal end of the cochlea, with minimal influence of neural degeneration. At the apical end of the array (1.5 cochlear turns), the dynamic range and the spatial selectivity are limited due to the occurrence of cross-turn stimulation, with the exception of the condition without neural degeneration and with the electrode array along the lateral wall of scala tympani. The eCAP simulations indicate that a large P(0) peak occurs before the N(1)P(1) complex when the fibers are not degenerated. The absence of this peak might be used as an indicator for neural degeneration.

[1]  Norbert Dillier,et al.  A Simple Two-Component Model of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in the Human Cochlea , 2000, Audiology and Neurotology.

[2]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. I. Compound action potential recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

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

[4]  Jeroen J. Briaire,et al.  Initial Evaluation of the Clarion CII Cochlear Implant: Speech Perception and Neural Response Imaging , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[5]  Summerfield Aq,et al.  Preoperative predictors of outcomes from cochlear implantation in adults: performance and quality of life. , 1995 .

[6]  W. Parkinson,et al.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. , 1999, The American journal of otology.

[7]  J. Niparko,et al.  Choice of Ear for Cochlear Implantation: The Effect of History and Residual Hearing on Predicted Postoperative Performance , 2003, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[8]  Wolfgang Gaggl,et al.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses for Lateral and Medial Placement of the Clarion HiFocus Electrode , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[9]  A. Bacciu,et al.  The Nucleus Contour Electrode Array: An Electrophysiological Study , 2002, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  J. Holsheimer,et al.  A model of the electrical behaviour of myelinated sensory nerve fibres based on human data , 1999, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[11]  F B van der Beek,et al.  Clinical Evaluation of the Clarion CII HiFocus 1 with and Without Positioner , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[12]  P J Abbas,et al.  Multivariate Predictors of Audiological Success with Multichannel Cochlear Implants , 1993, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[13]  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.

[14]  Harold F. Schuknecht,et al.  Pathology of the Ear , 1974 .

[15]  J. Nadol Degeneration of cochlear neurons as seen in the spiral ganglion of man , 1990, Hearing Research.

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

[17]  J. Firszt,et al.  Electrophysiologic Effects of Placing Cochlear Implant Electrodes in a Perimodiolar Position in Young Children , 2004, The Laryngoscope.

[18]  J. J. Grote,et al.  The Importance of Human Cochlear Anatomy for the Results of Modiolus-Hugging Multichannel Cochlear Implants , 2001, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

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

[20]  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.

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

[22]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  3D mesh generation to solve the electrical volume conduction problem in the implanted inner ear , 2000, Simul. Pract. Theory.

[23]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  Unraveling the electrically evoked compound action potential , 2005, Hearing Research.

[24]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[25]  T Lenarz,et al.  A silastic positioner for a modiolus-hugging position of intracochlear electrodes: electrophysiologic effects. , 2000, The American journal of otology.

[26]  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.

[27]  J Thomas Roland,et al.  Surgical technique for the Nucleus Contour cochlear implant. , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[28]  John W. Clark,et al.  A distributed-parameter model of the myelinated nerve fiber. , 1991 .

[29]  Bruce J. Gantz,et al.  Residual Speech Perception and Cochlear Implant Performance in Postlingually Deafened Adults , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[30]  Johan H. M. Frijns,et al.  Integrated use of volume conduction and neural models to simulate the response to cochlear implants , 2000, Simul. Pract. Theory.

[31]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials , 2004, Hearing Research.

[32]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Predictors of postoperative performance with cochlear implants. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

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