Simulating the Effect of Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants

Overview

Journal Hear Res

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2008 Jun 17

PMID 18556160

Citations 44

Authors

Mohamed Bingabr

Blas Espinoza-Varas

Philipos C Loizou

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A model was developed to simulate acoustically the effects of excitation spread in cochlear implants (CI). Based on neurophysiologic data, the proposed model simulates the electrical-current decay rate associated with broad and narrow types of excitation, such as those produced by monopolar and bipolar electrode configurations. The effect of excitation spread on speech intelligibility was simulated in normal-hearing subjects by varying the slopes of the synthesis bands in the noise vocoder. Sentences and monosyllabic words processed via 4-16 channels of stimulation with varying degrees of excitation spread were presented to normal-hearing listeners for identification. Results showed significant interaction between spectral resolution (number of channels) and spread of excitation. The effect of narrowing the excitation spread was minimal when the spectral resolution was sufficiently good (>8 channels) but it was significant when the spectral resolution was poor (4 channels). A significant decrement in performance was observed for extremely narrow excitation spread. This outcome is partly consistent with behavioral data obtained with cochlear implant studies in that CI users tend to do as well or better with monopolar stimulation than with bipolar stimulation.

Citing Articles

The relationship between channel interaction, electrode placement, and speech perception in adult cochlear implant users.

Berg K, Goldsworthy R, Noble J, Dawant B, Gifford R J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 156(6):4289-4302.

PMID: 39740049 PMC: 11693204. DOI: 10.1121/10.0034603.

Employing deep learning model to evaluate speech information in acoustic simulations of Cochlear implants.

Sinha R, Azadpour M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):24056.

PMID: 39402071 PMC: 11479273. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-73173-6.

How to vocode: Using channel vocoders for cochlear-implant research.

Cychosz M, Winn M, Goupell M J Acoust Soc Am. 2024; 155(4):2407-2437.

PMID: 38568143 PMC: 10994674. DOI: 10.1121/10.0025274.

CompHEAR: A Customizable and Scalable Web-Enabled Auditory Performance Evaluation Platform for Cochlear Implant Sound Processing Research.

Merrill K, Muller L, Beim J, Hehrmann P, Swan D, Alfsmann D bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38187767 PMC: 10769353. DOI: 10.1101/2023.12.22.573126.

Speech Perception as a Function of the Number of Channels and Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Simulation.

Yuksel M, Kaya S Medeni Med J. 2023; 38(4):276-283.

PMID: 38148725 PMC: 10759942. DOI: 10.4274/MMJ.galenos.2023.73454.

References

van den Honert C, Stypulkowski P . Single fiber mapping of spatial excitation patterns in the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Hear Res. 1987; 29(2-3):195-206. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(87)90167-5. 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

Spelman F, Pfingst B, Clopton B, Jolly C, Rodenhiser K . Effects of electrical current configuration on potential fields in the electrically stimulated cochlea: field models and measurements. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995; 166:131-6. View

Raggio M, Schreiner C . Neuronal responses in cat primary auditory cortex to electrical cochlear stimulation: IV. Activation pattern for sinusoidal stimulation. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 89(6):3190-204. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00341.2002. View

Nelson D, Donaldson G, Kreft H . Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 123(3):1522-43. PMC: 2432425. DOI: 10.1121/1.2836786. View

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

Dingemanse J, Frijns J, Briaire J . Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers. Ear Hear. 2006; 27(6):645-57. DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000246683.29611.1b. View

Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J . Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95(2):1085-99. DOI: 10.1121/1.408469. View

Pfingst B, Franck K, Xu L, Bauer E, Zwolan T . Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001; 2(2):87-103. PMC: 3201186. DOI: 10.1007/s101620010065. View

10.

Dorman M, Loizou P . Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. Am J Otol. 1997; 18(6 Suppl):S113-4. View

11.

PETERSON G, LEHISTE I . Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord. 1962; 27:62-70. DOI: 10.1044/jshd.2701.62. View

12.

Morris D, Pfingst B . Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2001; 1(3):211-23. PMC: 2504544. DOI: 10.1007/s101620010022. View

13.

Fu Q, Nogaki G . Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2005; 6(1):19-27. PMC: 2504636. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-004-5024-3. View

14.

Zwolan T, Kileny P, Ashbaugh C, Telian S . Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation "20 + 2" implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am J Otol. 1996; 17(5):717-23. View

15.

Boex C, de Balthasar C, Kos M, Pelizzone M . Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 114(4 Pt 1):2049-57. DOI: 10.1121/1.1610451. View

16.

Chatterjee M . Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 105(2 Pt 1):850-60. DOI: 10.1121/1.426274. View

17.

Fu Q, Shannon R . Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(4):339-48. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200208000-00009. View

18.

Jolly C, Spelman F, Clopton B . Quadrupolar stimulation for Cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996; 43(8):857-65. DOI: 10.1109/10.508549. View

19.

Kwon B, van den Honert C . Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119(5 Pt 1):2994-3002. DOI: 10.1121/1.2184128. View

20.

ter Keurs M, Festen J, PLOMP R . Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception. I. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992; 91(5):2872-80. DOI: 10.1121/1.402950. View