Virtual Channel Discrimination is Improved by Current Focusing in Cochlear Implant Recipients

Overview

Journal Hear Res

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2009 Apr 23

PMID 19383534

Citations 45

Authors

David M Landsberger

Arthi G Srinivasan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Cochlear implant users' spectral resolution is limited by both the number of implanted electrodes and channel interactions between electrodes. Current steering (virtual channels) between two adjacent monopolar electrodes has been used to increase the number of spectral channels across the electrode array. However, monopolar stimulation is associated with large current spread and increased channel interaction. Current focusing across three adjacent electrodes (tripolar stimulation) has been used to reduce electrode current spread and improve channel selectivity. In the present study, current steering and current focusing were combined within a four-electrode stimulation pattern (quadrupolar virtual channels), thereby addressing the need for both increased channels and reduced current spread. Virtual channel discrimination was measured in 7 users of the Advanced Bionics Clarion II or HiRes 90K implants; virtual channel discrimination was compared between monopolar and quadrupolar virtual channels at three stimulation sites. The results showed that quadrupolar virtual channels provided better spectral resolution than monopolar virtual channels. The results suggested that quadrupolar virtual channels might provide the "best of both worlds" improving the number of spectral channels while reducing channel interactions.

Citing Articles

Investigating the Effect of Blurring and Focusing Current in Cochlear Implant Users with the Panoramic ECAP Method.

Garcia C, Morse-Fortier C, Guerit F, Hislop S, Goehring T, Carlyon R J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2024; 25(6):591-609.

PMID: 39414747 PMC: 11683039. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-024-00966-x.

A computational model to simulate spectral modulation and speech perception experiments of cochlear implant users.

Alvarez F, Kipping D, Nogueira W Front Neuroinform. 2023; 17:934472.

PMID: 37006637 PMC: 10061543. DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2023.934472.

Combining Place and Rate of Stimulation Improves Frequency Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.

Bissmeyer S, Goldsworthy R Hear Res. 2022; 424:108583.

PMID: 35930901 PMC: 10849775. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108583.

Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.

Carlyon R, Goehring T J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2021; 22(5):481-508.

PMID: 34432222 PMC: 8476711. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-021-00811-5.

Place-Pitch Interval Perception With a Cochlear Implant.

Stupak N, Todd A, Landsberger D Ear Hear. 2021; 42(2):301-312.

PMID: 33606415 PMC: 8915956. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000922.

References

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

H M Mens L, Berenstein C . Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study. Otol Neurotol. 2005; 26(5):957-64. DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185060.74339.9d. 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

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

Holden L, Skinner M, Holden T, Demorest M . Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear. 2002; 23(5):463-76. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200210000-00008. View

Brendel M, Buechner A, Krueger B, Frohne-Buechner C, Lenarz T . Evaluation of the Harmony soundprocessor in combination with the speech coding strategy HiRes 120. Otol Neurotol. 2008; 29(2):199-202. DOI: 10.1097/mao.0b013e31816335c6. View

Berenstein C, H M Mens L, Mulder J, Vanpoucke F . Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear. 2008; 29(2):250-60. DOI: 10.1097/aud.0b013e3181645336. View

Wilson B, Finley C, Lawson D, Wolford R, Eddington D, Rabinowitz W . Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature. 1991; 352(6332):236-8. DOI: 10.1038/352236a0. View

Vandali A, Whitford L, Plant K, Clark G . Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 2001; 21(6):608-24. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200012000-00008. View

10.

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

11.

Litvak L, Spahr A, Emadi G . Loudness growth observed under partially tripolar stimulation: model and data from cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122(2):967-81. DOI: 10.1121/1.2749414. View

12.

Supin AYa , Popov V, Milekhina O, Tarakanov M . Frequency resolving power measured by rippled noise. Hear Res. 1994; 78(1):31-40. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(94)90041-8. View

13.

Henry B, Turner C . The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113(5):2861-73. DOI: 10.1121/1.1561900. View

14.

Henry B, Turner C, Behrens A . Spectral peak resolution and speech recognition in quiet: normal hearing, hearing impaired, and cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 118(2):1111-21. DOI: 10.1121/1.1944567. View

15.

Firszt J, Koch D, Downing M, Litvak L . Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol. 2007; 28(5):629-36. DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000281803.36574.bc. View

16.

Loizou P, Dorman M, Tu Z . On the number of channels needed to understand speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(4 Pt 1):2097-103. DOI: 10.1121/1.427954. View

17.

Donaldson G, Kreft H, Litvak L . Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L). J Acoust Soc Am. 2005; 118(2):623-6. DOI: 10.1121/1.1937362. View

18.

McDermott H, McKay C . Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 96(1):155-62. DOI: 10.1121/1.410475. View

19.

Bierer J . Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 121(3):1642-53. DOI: 10.1121/1.2436712. View

20.

Smith Z, Delgutte B, Oxenham A . Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature. 2002; 416(6876):87-90. PMC: 2268248. DOI: 10.1038/416087a. View