Cochlear Place of Stimulation Is One Determinant of Cochlear Implant Sound Quality

Overview

Journal Audiol Neurootol

Publisher Karger

Specialties Otorhinolaryngology
Psychiatry

Date 2019 Oct 30

PMID 31661682

Citations 4

Authors

Michael F Dorman

Sarah Cook Natale

Leslie Baxter

Daniel M Zeitler

Mathew L Carlson

Jack H Noble

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Our aim was to determine the effect of acute changes in cochlear place of stimulation on cochlear implant (CI) sound quality.

Design: In Experiment 1, 5 single-sided deaf (SSD) listeners fitted with a long (28-mm) electrode array were tested. Basal shifts in place of stimulation were implemented by turning off the most apical electrodes and reassigning the filters to more basal electrodes. In Experiment 2, 2 SSD patients fitted with a shorter (16.5-mm) electrode array were tested. Both basal and apical shifts in place of stimulation were implemented. The apical shifts were accomplished by current steering and creating a virtual place of stimulation more apical that that of the most apical electrode.

Results: Listeners matched basal shifts by shifting, in the normal-hearing ear, the overall spectrum up in frequency and/or increasing voice pitch (F0). Listeners matched apical shifts by shifting down the overall frequency spectrum in the normal-hearing ear.

Conclusion: One factor determining CI voice quality is the location of stimulation along the cochlear partition.

Citing Articles

Close approximations to the sound of a cochlear implant.

Dorman M, Natale S, Stohl J, Felder J Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1434786.

PMID: 39086377 PMC: 11288806. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1434786.

Upward Shifts in the Internal Representation of Frequency Can Persist Over a 3-Year Period for Cochlear Implant Patients Fit With a Relatively Short Electrode Array.

Dorman M, Natale S, Noble J, Zeitler D Front Hum Neurosci. 2022; 16:863891.

PMID: 35399353 PMC: 8990937. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.863891.

Mythbusters! The Truth about Common Misconceptions in Cochlear Implantation.

Woodson E, Aaron K, Nguyen-Huynh A, Vargo J, Mowry S Semin Hear. 2021; 42(4):352-364.

PMID: 34912163 PMC: 8660170. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739368.

Approximations to the Voice of a Cochlear Implant: Explorations With Single-Sided Deaf Listeners.

Dorman M, Natale S, Baxter L, Zeitler D, Carlson M, Lorens A Trends Hear. 2020; 24:2331216520920079.

PMID: 32339072 PMC: 7225791. DOI: 10.1177/2331216520920079.

References

Saoji A, Litvak L . Use of "phantom electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2010; 31(5):693-701. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e1d15e. View

Dorman M, Natale S, Butts A, Zeitler D, Carlson M . The Sound Quality of Cochlear Implants: Studies With Single-sided Deaf Patients. Otol Neurotol. 2017; 38(8):e268-e273. PMC: 5606248. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001449. View

Noble J, Labadie R, Gifford R, Dawant B . Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2013; 21(5):820-9. PMC: 3769452. DOI: 10.1109/TNSRE.2013.2253333. View

Dorman M, Smith L, Smith M, Parkin J . Frequency discrimination and speech recognition by patients who use the Ineraid and continuous interleaved sampling cochlear-implant signal processors. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996; 99(2):1174-84. DOI: 10.1121/1.414600. View

Tan C, Martin B, Svirsky M . Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017; 28(3):187-199. PMC: 5435235. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15063. View

Peters J, Wendrich A, van Eijl R, Rhebergen K, Versnel H, Grolman W . The Sound of a Cochlear Implant Investigated in Patients With Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant. Otol Neurotol. 2018; 39(6):707-714. DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001821. View

Yost W, Loiselle L, Dorman M, Burns J, Brown C . Sound source localization of filtered noises by listeners with normal hearing: a statistical analysis. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013; 133(5):2876-82. PMC: 3663857. DOI: 10.1121/1.4799803. View

Landsberger D, Svrakic M, Roland Jr J, Svirsky M . The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants. Ear Hear. 2015; 36(5):e207-13. PMC: 4549170. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000163. View

Reiss L, Turner C, Erenberg S, Gantz B . Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007; 8(2):241-57. PMC: 2538353. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0077-8. View

10.

Svirsky M, Ding N, Sagi E, Tan C, Fitzgerald M, Glassman E . VALIDATION OF ACOUSTIC MODELS OF AUDITORY NEURAL PROSTHESES. Proc IEEE Int Conf Acoust Speech Signal Process. 2014; 2013:8629-8633. PMC: 4244817. DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6639350. View

11.

Vermeire K, Landsberger D, Van de Heyning P, Voormolen M, Kleine Punte A, Schatzer R . Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time. Hear Res. 2015; 326:8-14. PMC: 4524783. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.03.011. View

12.

Baer T, Moore B . Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95(4):2277-80. DOI: 10.1121/1.408640. View