Literature DB >> 18595189

Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations.

Carlo K Berenstein1, Lucas H M Mens, Jef J S Mulder, Filiep J Vanpoucke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of Monopole (Mono), Tripole (Tri), and "Virtual channel" (Vchan) electrode configurations on spectral resolution and speech perception in a crossover design.
DESIGN: Nine experienced adults who received an Advanced Bionics CII/90K cochlear implant participated in a crossover design using three experimental strategies for 2 wk each. Three strategies were compared: (1) Mono; (2) Tri with current partly returning to adjacent electrodes and partly (25 or 75%) to the extracochlear reference; and (3) a monopolar "Vchan" strategy creating seven intermediate channels between two contacts. Each strategy was a variant of the standard "HiRes" processing strategy using 14 channels and 1105 pulses/sec/ channel, and a pulse duration of 32 microsec/phase. Spectral resolution was measured using broadband noise with a sinusoidally rippled spectral envelope with peaks evenly spaced on a logarithmic frequency scale. Speech perception was measured for monosyllables in quiet and in steady-state and fluctuating noises. Subjective comments on music experience and preferences in everyday use were assessed through questionnaires.
RESULTS: Thresholds and most comfortable levels with Mono and Vchan were both significantly lower than levels with Tri. Spectral resolution was significantly higher with Tri than with Mono; spectral resolution with Vchan did not differ significantly from the other configurations. Moderate but significant correlations between word recognition and spectral resolution were found in speech in quiet and fluctuating noise. For speech in quiet, word recognition was best with Mono and worst with Vchan; Tri did not significantly differ from the other configurations. Pooled across the noise conditions, word recognition was best with Tri and worst with Vchan (Mono did not significantly differ from the other configurations). These differences were small and insufficient to result in a clear increase in performance across subjects if the result from the best configuration per subject was compared with the result from Mono. Across all subjects, music appreciation and satisfaction in everyday use did not clearly differ between configurations.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) Although spectral resolution was improved with the tripolar configuration, differences in speech performance were too small in this limited group of subjects to justify clinical introduction. (2) Overall spectral resolution remained extremely poor compared with normal hearing; it remains to be seen whether further manipulations of the electrical field will be more effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18595189     DOI: 10.1097/aud.0b013e3181645336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  62 in total

1.  Comparing the effects of reverberation and of noise on speech recognition in simulated electric-acoustic listening.

Authors:  Kate Helms Tillery; Christopher A Brown; Sid P Bacon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Evidence of across-channel processing for spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Ward R Drennan; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Steven M Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Qing Tang; Raul Benítez; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 5.379

5.  Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Anderson; David A Nelson; Heather Kreft; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  The role of pitch and harmonic cancellation when listening to speech in harmonic background sounds.

Authors:  Daniel R Guest; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Gary L Jones; Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Validation of a clinical assessment of spectral-ripple resolution for cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Elizabeth S Anderson; Jong Ho Won; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.