Perceptual Interactions Between Electrodes Using Focused and Monopolar Cochlear Stimulation

Overview

Journal J Assoc Res Otolaryngol

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2015 Mar 7

PMID 25742726

Citations 17

Authors

Jeremy Marozeau

Hugh J McDermott

Brett A Swanson

Colette M McKay

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In today's cochlear implant (CI) systems, the monopolar (MP) electrode configuration is the most commonly used stimulation mode, requiring only a single current source. However, with an implant that will allow simultaneous activation of multiple independent current sources, it is possible to implement an all-polar (AP) stimulation mode designed to create a focused electrical field. The goal of this experiment was to study the potential benefits of this all-polar mode for reducing uncontrolled electrode interactions compared with the monopolar mode. The five participants who took part in the study were implanted with a research device that was connected via a percutaneous connector to a benchtop stimulator providing 22 independent current sources. The perceptual effects of the AP mode were tested in three experiments. In Experiment 1, the current level difference between loudness-matched sequential and simultaneous stimuli composed of 2 spatially separated pulse trains was measured as function of the electrode separation. Results indicated a strong current-summation interaction for simultaneous stimuli in the MP mode for separations up to at least 4.8 mm. No significant interaction was found in the AP mode beyond a separation of 2.4 mm. In Experiment 2, a forward-masking paradigm was used with fixed equally loud probes in AP and MP modes, and AP maskers presented on different electrode positions. Results indicated a similar spatial masking pattern between modes. In Experiment 3, subjects were asked to discriminate between across-electrode temporal delays. It was hypothesized that discrimination would decrease with electrode separation faster in AP compared to MP modes. However, results showed no difference between the two modes. Overall, the results indicated that the AP mode produced less current spread than MP mode but did not lead to a significant advantage in terms of spread of neuronal excitation at equally loud levels.

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.

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.

Current distribution of distributed all-polar cochlear implant stimulation mode measured in-situ.

Stahl P, Dang K, Vandersteen C, Guevara N, Clerc M, Gnansia D PLoS One. 2022; 17(10):e0275961.

PMID: 36315506 PMC: 9621453. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275961.

Recent Advances in Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design Parameters.

Ertas Y, Ozpolat D, Karasu S, Ashammakhi N Micromachines (Basel). 2022; 13(7).

PMID: 35888898 PMC: 9323156. DOI: 10.3390/mi13071081.

Tonotopic Selectivity in Cats and Humans: Electrophysiology and Psychophysics.

Guerit F, Middlebrooks J, Richardson M, Arneja A, Harland A, Gransier R J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2022; 23(4):513-534.

PMID: 35697952 PMC: 9437197. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-022-00851-5.

References

Frijns J, Dekker D, Briaire J . Neural excitation patterns induced by phased-array stimulation in the implanted human cochlea. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011; 131(4):362-70. DOI: 10.3109/00016489.2010.541939. View

Bierer J, Faulkner K . Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves. Ear Hear. 2010; 31(2):247-58. PMC: 2836401. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c7daf4. View

Fraser M, McKay C . Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues. Hear Res. 2011; 283(1-2):59-69. PMC: 3314947. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.009. View

Landsberger D, Padilla M, Srinivasan A . Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2012; 284(1-2):16-24. PMC: 3289740. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.12.009. View

McKay C . Forward masking as a method of measuring place specificity of neural excitation in cochlear implants: a review of methods and interpretation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012; 131(3):2209-24. DOI: 10.1121/1.3683248. View

Blamey P, Artieres F, Baskent D, Bergeron F, Beynon A, Burke E . Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol. 2012; 18(1):36-47. DOI: 10.1159/000343189. View

Srinivasan A, Padilla M, Shannon R, Landsberger D . Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2013; 299:29-36. PMC: 3639477. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.02.004. View

Fielden C, Kluk K, McKay C . Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133(6):4109-23. DOI: 10.1121/1.4803909. View

Fielden C, Kluk K, McKay C . Interpulse interval discrimination within and across channels: comparison of monopolar and tripolar mode of stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014; 135(5):2913-22. DOI: 10.1121/1.4869687. View

10.

Long C, Holden T, McClelland G, Parkinson W, Shelton C, Kelsall D . Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014; 15(2):293-304. PMC: 3946134. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0437-5. View

11.

Smith Z, Parkinson W, Long C . Multipolar current focusing increases spectral resolution in cochlear implants. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013; 2013:2796-9. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC.2013.6610121. View

12.

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

13.

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

14.

Moore B, Alcantara J . The use of psychophysical tuning curves to explore dead regions in the cochlea. Ear Hear. 2001; 22(4):268-78. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200108000-00002. View

15.

McKay C, Henshall K, Farrell R, McDermott H . A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am. 2003; 113(4 Pt 1):2054-63. DOI: 10.1121/1.1558378. View

16.

Shannon R . Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction. Hear Res. 1983; 12(1):1-16. DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(83)90115-6. View

17.

Shannon R . A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1992; 39(4):424-6. DOI: 10.1109/10.126616. View

18.

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

19.

McKay C, McDermott H . The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(2):998-1009. DOI: 10.1121/1.428052. View

20.

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