Literature DB >> 34725189

Interaural Place-of-Stimulation Mismatch Estimates Using CT Scans and Binaural Perception, But Not Pitch, Are Consistent in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Joshua G W Bernstein1, Kenneth K Jensen2, Olga A Stakhovskaya3, Jack H Noble4, Michael Hoa5, H Jeffery Kim5, Robert Shih6, Elizabeth Kolberg3, Miranda Cleary3, Matthew J Goupell3.   

Abstract

Bilateral cochlear implants (BI-CIs) or a CI for single-sided deafness (SSD-CI; one normally functioning acoustic ear) can partially restore spatial-hearing abilities, including sound localization and speech understanding in noise. For these populations, however, interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can occur and thus diminish binaural sensitivity that relies on interaurally frequency-matched neurons. This study examined whether plasticity-reorganization of central neural pathways over time-can compensate for peripheral interaural place mismatch. We hypothesized differential plasticity across two systems: none for binaural processing but adaptation for pitch perception toward frequencies delivered by the specific electrodes. Interaural place mismatch was evaluated in 19 BI-CI and 23 SSD-CI human subjects (both sexes) using binaural processing (interaural-time-difference discrimination with simultaneous bilateral stimulation), pitch perception (pitch ranking for single electrodes or acoustic tones with sequential bilateral stimulation), and physical electrode-location estimates from computed-tomography (CT) scans. On average, CT scans revealed relatively little BI-CI interaural place mismatch (26° insertion-angle mismatch) but a relatively large SSD-CI mismatch, particularly at low frequencies (166° for an electrode tuned to 300 Hz, decreasing to 14° at 7000 Hz). For BI-CI subjects, the three metrics were in agreement because there was little mismatch. For SSD-CI subjects, binaural and CT measurements were in agreement, suggesting little binaural-system plasticity induced by mismatch. The pitch measurements disagreed with binaural and CT measurements, suggesting place-pitch plasticity or a procedural bias. These results suggest that reducing interaural place mismatch and potentially improving binaural processing by reprogramming the CI frequency allocation would be better done using CT-scan than pitch information.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Electrode-array placement for cochlear implants (bionic prostheses that partially restore hearing) does not explicitly align neural representations of frequency information. The resulting interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch can diminish spatial-hearing abilities. In this study, adults with two cochlear implants showed reasonable interaural alignment, whereas those with one cochlear implant but normal hearing in the other ear often showed mismatch. In cases of mismatch, binaural sensitivity was best when the same cochlear locations were stimulated in both ears, suggesting that binaural brainstem pathways do not experience plasticity to compensate for mismatch. In contrast, interaurally pitch-matched electrodes deviated from cochlear-location estimates and did not optimize binaural sensitivity. Clinical correction of interaural place mismatch using binaural or computed-tomography (but not pitch) information may improve spatial-hearing benefits.
Copyright © 2021 the authors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  binaural; brainstem; interaural time difference; mismatch; plasticity; superior olivary complex

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34725189      PMCID: PMC8660045          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0359-21.2021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.709


  73 in total

1.  Optimizing the clinical fit of auditory brain stem implants.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Ian Nimmo-Smith; David M Baguley; Martin O'Driscoll; Richard Ramsden; Steven R Otto; Patrick R Axon; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information.

Authors:  F Maes; A Collignon; D Vandermeulen; G Marchal; P Suetens
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Spatial hearing benefits demonstrated with presentation of acoustic temporal fine structure cues in bilateral cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Tyler H Churchill; Alan Kan; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.664

6.  Worldwide trends in bilateral cochlear implantation.

Authors:  B Robert Peters; Josephine Wyss; Manuel Manrique
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Modulation enhancement in the electrical signal improves perception of interaural time differences with bimodal stimulation.

Authors:  Tom Francart; Anneke Lenssen; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-03

8.  Having Two Ears Facilitates the Perceptual Separation of Concurrent Talkers for Bilateral and Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implantees.

Authors:  Joshua G W Bernstein; Matthew J Goupell; Gerald I Schuchman; Arnaldo L Rivera; Douglas S Brungart
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 9.  Binaural hearing with electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-02       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Hongmei Hu; Mathias Dietz
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.293

View more
  5 in total

1.  Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Jack H Noble; Sandeep A Phatak; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Kenneth K Jensen; Michael Hoa; Hung Jeffrey Kim; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.619

2.  Effects of better-ear glimpsing, binaural unmasking, and spectral resolution on spatial release from masking in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Bobby E Gibbs; Joshua G W Bernstein; Douglas S Brungart; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-08       Impact factor: 2.482

Review 3.  Considerations for Fitting Cochlear Implants Bimodally and to the Single-Sided Deaf.

Authors:  Sabrina H Pieper; Noura Hamze; Stefan Brill; Sabine Hochmuth; Mats Exter; Marek Polak; Andreas Radeloff; Michael Buschermöhle; Mathias Dietz
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

4.  Frequency Fitting Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithm in Cochlear Implant Users with Bimodal Binaural Hearing.

Authors:  Alexis Saadoun; Antoine Schein; Vincent Péan; Pierrick Legrand; Ludwig Serge Aho Glélé; Alexis Bozorg Grayeli
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-02-11

5.  Effects of the intensified frequency and time ranges on consonant enhancement in bilateral cochlear implant and hearing aid users.

Authors:  Yang-Soo Yoon; Carrie Drew
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-08-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.