Across-site Variation in Detection Thresholds and Maximum Comfortable Loudness Levels for Cochlear Implants

Overview

Journal J Assoc Res Otolaryngol

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2003 Nov 8

PMID 14605920

Citations 36

Authors

Bryan E Pfingst

Li Xu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In cochlear implants, variation across stimulation sites in psychophysical detection thresholds (T levels) and maximum comfortable loudness levels (C levels) can be large when narrow-bipolar (BP) stimulation is used. This across-site variation is typically smaller when monopolar (MP) stimulation is used. At least two models can account for across-site variation and the effects of electrode configuration on the magnitude of the variation. According to one model, across-site variation reflects site-to-site differences in the distances between the stimulating electrodes and the sites of action-potential initiation. Under this model, the lower across-site variation with MP stimulation is due to shallower current versus distance gradients. An alternative model assumes that T and C levels depend on integration of activity across the whole population of neurons and that MP stimulation activates neurons over a larger spatial extent than does BP stimulation. If T and C levels are determined by integration of activity across large overlapping populations of neurons, then their values at adjacent sites should be more similar than if these levels result from integration across smaller, more independent populations. We tested the models by examining the effects on across-site variation of three variables believed to affect the spatial extent of activation: electrode configuration, stimulus level within the dynamic range, and electrode-array design. T levels and C levels were measured in 13 subjects with Nucleus CI24M (straight array) and 9 subjects with Nucleus CI24R(CS) (Contour) cochlear implants using bipolar (BP) and monopolar (MP) electrode configurations. Site-to-site variation in T and C levels for BP stimulation was 2.1-3.3 times larger than that for MP stimulation. Contrary to the across-neuron integration hypothesis, no significant differences were found between across-site variation for T levels and that for C levels for the BP configuration. There was considerable overlap in site-to-site variation values for the two types of implants but mean site-to-site variation in C levels for CI24M implants was significantly lower than that for CI24R(CS) implants. Control studies suggested that these results were not an artifact of the scale, and not due to differences in inherent variability of the psychophysical measures, or to the method of quantifying across-site variation.

Citing Articles

Comparing Patient-Specific Variations in Intra-Cochlear Neural Health Estimated Using Psychophysical Thresholds and Panoramic Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials (PECAPs).

Peng T, Garcia C, Haneman M, Shader M, Carlyon R, McKay C J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2025; 26(1):77-91.

PMID: 39779632 PMC: 11861486. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-024-00972-z.

Effects of Degrees of Degeneration on the Electrical Excitation of Human Spiral Ganglion Neurons Based on a High-Resolution Computer Model.

Croner A, Heshmat A, Schrott-Fischer A, Glueckert R, Hemmert W, Bai S Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:914876.

PMID: 35873813 PMC: 9298973. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.914876.

Polarity Sensitivity of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers Based on Pulse Shape, Cochlear Implant Stimulation Strategy and Array.

Heshmat A, Sajedi S, Schrott-Fischer A, Rattay F Front Neurosci. 2021; 15:751599.

PMID: 34955717 PMC: 8692583. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2021.751599.

Estimating health of the implanted cochlea using psychophysical strength-duration functions and electrode configuration.

Garadat S, Colesa D, Swiderski D, Raphael Y, Pfingst B Hear Res. 2021; 414:108404.

PMID: 34883366 PMC: 8761176. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108404.

Measuring implanted patient response to tone pips.

Cornejo J, Quintana A, Beltran N, Granados P Biomed Eng Online. 2021; 20(1):10.

PMID: 33446195 PMC: 7807692. DOI: 10.1186/s12938-020-00844-6.

References

Pfingst B, Zwolan T, Holloway L . Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Hear Res. 1997; 112(1-2):247-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(97)00122-6. View

Shannon R, Zeng F, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M . Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 1995; 270(5234):303-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5234.303. View

Kral A, Hartmann R, Mortazavi D, Klinke R . Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents. Hear Res. 1998; 121(1-2):11-28. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(98)00061-6. View

Dorman M, Loizou P, Fitzke J, Tu Z . The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104(6):3583-5. DOI: 10.1121/1.423940. View

Fishman K, Shannon R, Slattery W . Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997; 40(5):1201-15. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201. View

Nadol Jr J . Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 117(3 Pt 1):220-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0194-5998(97)70178-5. View

Fu Q, Shannon R, Wang X . Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104(6):3586-96. DOI: 10.1121/1.423941. View

Bruce I, WHITE M, Irlicht L, OLeary S, Clark G . The effects of stochastic neural activity in a model predicting intensity perception with cochlear implants: low-rate stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1999; 46(12):1393-404. DOI: 10.1109/10.804567. View

Friesen L, Shannon R, Baskent D, Wang X . Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 110(2):1150-63. DOI: 10.1121/1.1381538. View

10.

Bierer J, Middlebrooks J . Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 87(1):478-92. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00212.2001. View

11.

Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, Shapiro W, Knight M, Stecker M . Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(1 Suppl):28S-40S. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00004. View

12.

Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Staller S, Arndt P, Cosgriff A, Ebinger K . The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(1 Suppl):41S-48S. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00005. View

13.

Cohen N, Roland Jr J, Fishman A . Surgical technique for the Nucleus Contour cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(1 Suppl):59S-66S. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00007. View

14.

Miller J, Miller A, Yamagata T, Bredberg G, Altschuler R . Protection and regrowth of the auditory nerve after deafness: neurotrophins, antioxidants and depolarization are effective in vivo. Audiol Neurootol. 2002; 7(3):175-9. DOI: 10.1159/000058306. View

15.

Xu L, Tsai Y, Pfingst B . Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002; 112(1):247-58. PMC: 1414789. DOI: 10.1121/1.1487843. View

16.

LEVITT H . Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971; 49(2):Suppl 2:467+. View

17.

Hinojosa R, Marion M . Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1983; 405:459-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1983.tb31662.x. View

18.

Shepherd R, Clark G, Pyman B, Webb R . Banded intracochlear electrode array: evaluation of insertion trauma in human temporal bones. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1985; 94(1 Pt 1):55-9. DOI: 10.1177/000348948509400112. View

19.

Kennedy D . Multichannel intracochlear electrodes: mechanism of insertion trauma. Laryngoscope. 1987; 97(1):42-9. DOI: 10.1288/00005537-198701000-00011. View

20.

Hartmann R, Klinke R . Impulse patterns of auditory nerve fibres to extra- and intracochlear electrical stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990; 469:128-34. View