Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Ching-Chih Wu ; Xin Luo
• 关键词：cochlear implant ; current steering ; current focusing ; tripolar mode ; spread of excitation ; forward masking pattern ; electrical field imaging ; compound action potential
• 刊名：JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：17
• 期：2
• 页码：145-158
• 全文大小：1,116 KB
• 参考文献：Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, Firszt JB, Hughes ML, Hong SH, Staller SJ (1999) Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 20:45–59CrossRef PubMed
  Berenstein CK, Vanpoucke FJ, Mulder JJ, Mens LH (2010) Electrical field imaging as a means to predict the loudness of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implant patients. Hear Res 270:28–38CrossRef PubMed
  Bierer JA (2007) Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: Evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am 121:1642–1653CrossRef PubMed
  Bonham BH, Litvak LM (2008) Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics. Hear Res 242:141–153CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Chatterjee M, Shannon RV (1998) Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 103:2565–2572CrossRef PubMed
  Chatterjee M, Galvin JJ, Fu QJ, Shannon RV (2006) Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 7:15–25CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Cohen LT, Richardson LM, Saunders E, Cowan RSC (2003) Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking. Hear Res 179:72–87CrossRef PubMed
  Dingemanse JG, Frijns JH, Briaire JJ (2006) Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers. Ear Hear 27:645–657CrossRef PubMed
  Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X (2001) Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1150–1163CrossRef PubMed
  Goldwyn JH, Bierer SM, Bierer JA (2010) Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration. Hear Res 268:93–104CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Hacker MJ, Ratcliff R (1979) A revised table of d’ for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys 26:168–170CrossRef
  Hinojosa R, Marion M (1983) Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness. Ann N Y Acad Sci 405:459–484CrossRef PubMed
  Hughes ML (2008) A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2008(124):2711–2714CrossRef
  Hughes ML, Abbas PJ (2006) The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. J Acoust Soc Am 119:1527–1537CrossRef PubMed
  Jesteadt W (1980) An adaptive procedure for subjective judgments. Atten Percept Psychophys 28:85–88CrossRef
  Kwon BJ, van den Honert C (2006) Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 119:2994–3002CrossRef PubMed
  Landsberger DM, Padilla M, Srinivasan AG (2012) Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 284:16–24CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Lee ER, Friedland DR, Runge CL (2012) Recovery from forward masking in elderly cochlear implant users. Otol Neurotol 33:355–363CrossRef PubMed
  Litvak LM, Spahr AJ, Emadi G (2007) Loudness growth observed under partially tripolar stimulation: model and data from cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 122:967–981CrossRef PubMed
  Mens LHM, Berenstein CK (2005) Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: A crossover study. Otol Neurotol 26:957–964CrossRef PubMed
  Patterson RD (1976) Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 59:640–654CrossRef PubMed
  Saoji AA, Landsberger DM, Padilla M, Litvak LM (2013) Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants. Hear Res 298:109–116CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M (1995) Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303–304CrossRef PubMed
  Snel-Bongers J, Briaire JJ, Vanpoucke FJ, Frijns JH (2012) Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation. Ear Hear 33:367–376CrossRef PubMed
  Srinivasan AG, Padilla M, Shannon RV, Landsberger DM (2013) Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 299:29–36CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Tang Q, Benitez R, Zeng FG (2011) Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants. J Neural Eng 8:046029CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Undurraga JA, Carlyon RP, Wouters J, van Wieringen A (2012) Evaluating the noise in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements in cochlear implants. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59:1912–1923CrossRef PubMed
  Vanpoucke FJ, Zarowski AJ, Peeters SA (2004) Identification of the impedance model of an implanted cochlear prosthesis from intracochlear potential measurements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51:2174–2183CrossRef PubMed
  Wu CC, Luo X (2013) Current steering with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 14:213–231CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Wu CC, Luo X (2014) Electrode spanning with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:1023–1036CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  Zhu Z, Tang Q, Zeng FG, Guan T, Ye D (2012) Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation. Hear Res 283:45–58CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
  
• 作者单位：Ching-Chih Wu (1) (2)
  Xin Luo (1) (3)
  
  1. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, 715 Clinic Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
  2. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, 715 Clinic Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA
  3. Department of Speech and Hearing Science, Arizona State University, Coor Hall, 975 S. Myrtle Av., P. O. Box 870102, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA
  
• 刊物类别：Medicine
• 刊物主题：Medicine & Public Health
  Otorhinolaryngology
  Neurosciences
  Neurobiology
  
• 出版者：Springer New York
• ISSN：1438-7573

文摘

Current steering in partial tripolar (pTP) mode has been shown to improve pitch perception and spectral resolution with cochlear implants (CIs). In this mode, a fraction (σ) of the main electrode current is returned within the cochlea and steered between the basal and apical flanking electrodes (with a proportion of α and 1 − α, respectively). Pitch generally decreases when α increases from 0 to 1, although the salience of pitch change varies across CI users. This study aimed to identify the mechanism of pitch changes with pTP-mode current steering and the factors contributing to the intersubject variability in pitch-ranking sensitivity. The electrical fields were measured for steered pTP stimuli on the same main electrode with α = 0, 0.5, and 1 in five implanted ears using electrical field imaging (EFI). The related excitation patterns were also measured physiologically using evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and psychophysically using psychophysical forward masking (PFM). Consistent with the pitch-ranking results in this study, the EFI, ECAP, and PFM centroids shifted apically with increasing α. An apical shift was also observed for the PFM peak but not for the EFI or ECAP peak. The pattern width was similar with different α values within a given measure (e.g., EFI, ECAP, or PFM), but the ECAP patterns were broader than the EFI and PFM patterns, possibly because ECAP was measured with smaller σ values than EFI and PFM. The amount of pattern shift with α depended on σ (i.e., the total amount of current used for steering) but was not correlated with the pitch-ranking sensitivity across subjects. The results revealed that the pitch changes elicited by pTP-mode current steering were not only driven by the shifts of excitation centroid.