Electrical Vestibular Stimulation in Humans: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: In patients with bilateral vestibulopathy, the regular treatment options, such as medication, surgery, and/or vestibular rehabilitation, do not always suffice. Therefore, the focus in this field of vestibular research shifted to electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) and the development of a system capable of artificially restoring the vestibular function. Key Message: Currently, three approaches are being investigated: vestibular co-stimulation with a cochlear implant (CI), EVS with a vestibular implant (VI), and galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS). All three applications show promising results but due to conceptual differences and the experimental state, a consensus on which application is the most ideal for which type of patient is still missing. SUMMARY: Vestibular co-stimulation with a CI is based on "spread of excitation," which is a phenomenon that occurs when the currents from the CI spread to the surrounding structures and stimulate them. It has been shown that CI activation can indeed result in stimulation of the vestibular structures. Therefore, the question was raised whether vestibular co-stimulation can be functionally used in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. A more direct vestibular stimulation method can be accomplished by implantation and activation of a VI. The concept of the VI is based on the technology and principles of the CI. Different VI prototypes are currently being evaluated regarding feasibility and functionality. So far, all of them were capable of activating different types of vestibular reflexes. A third stimulation method is GVS, which requires the use of surface electrodes instead of an implanted electrode array. However, as the currents are sent through the skull from one mastoid to the other, GVS is rather unspecific. It should be mentioned though, that the reported spread of excitation in both CI and VI use also seems to induce a more unspecific stimulation. Although all three applications of EVS were shown to be effective, it has yet to be defined which option is more desirable based on applicability and efficiency. It is possible and even likely that there is a place for all three approaches, given the diversity of the patient population who serves to gain from such technologies.

Functional neuroimaging studies in asymmetric hearing loss.

This article presents an analysis of the impact of functional neuroimaging studies (positron emission tomography, PET) in asymmetric hearing loss based on the clinical expertise obtained from a group of 21 patients. In these patients, PET studies are performed at rest and after auditory stimulation in order to measure the increase in brain activity in the ipsi- and contralateral cortex, providing supporting evidence to recommend a specific treatment and the side to implant. In conclusion, PET is a useful tool for selected cases in which information on the metabolic status of the auditory pathway can drive the decision regarding the treatment of the most appropriate ear. However, in view of our small sample, further research is needed to confirm our results in this topic.

Speech perception performance as a function of stimulus pulse rate and processing strategy preference for the Cochlear Nucleus CI24RE device: relation to perceptual threshold and loudness comfort profiles.

Current cochlear implants can operate at high pulse rates. The effect of increasing pulse rate on speech performance is not yet clear. Habituation to low rates may affect the outcome. This paper presents the results of three subsequent studies using different experimental paradigms, applying the Nucleus CI24RE device, and conducted by ten European implant teams. Pulse rate per channel varied from 500 to 3500 pulses per second with ACE and from 1200 to 3500 pps with CIS strategy. The results showed that the first rate presented had little effect on the finally preferred rate. Lower rates were preferred. The effect of pulse rate on word scores of post-linguistic implantees was small; high rates tended to give lower scores. However, there were no significant differences between the word scores across subjects if collected at the individually preferred pulse rate. High pulse rates were preferred when the post-implantation threshold was low.

Results from a European clinical investigation of the Nucleus multichannel auditory brainstem implant.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the perceptual benefits and potential risks of implanting the Nucleus(R) multichannel auditory brainstem implant. DESIGN: Between September 1992 and October 1997 a total of 27 subjects received a Nucleus 20- or 21-channel Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI). All subjects involved in the trial had bilateral acoustic tumour as a result of neurofibromatosis type 2 (NF2) resulting in complete dysfunction of the VIIIth nerve. The study used each subject as their own control without a preoperative baseline because residual hearing, if existing, was destroyed at surgery by tumour removal. A battery of speech tests was conducted to evaluate each patient's performance and communication abilities. Tests were conducted, where possible, in the auditory-only, visual-only, and auditory-visual conditions at 3 days postoperatively (baseline), at 3-mo intervals for the first year and every 12 mo thereafter. A subjective performance questionnaire was administered together with an extensive neurological examination at each test interval. RESULTS: 27 subjects involved in this trial were successfully implanted with a Nucleus ABI. One subject died 2 days postoperatively due to a lung embolism unrelated to the device. Twenty-six subjects underwent device activation and all but one patient received auditory sensation at initial stimulation (96.2%). On average 8.6 (+/-4.2) of the available 21 electrodes were used in the patients' MAPs. Performance evaluation measures showed that the majority of users had access to auditory information such as environmental sound awareness together with stress and rhythm cues in speech that assist with lipreading. Although most subjects did not achieve any functional auditory-alone, open-set speech understanding, two subjects from this series (7.4%) did receive sufficient benefit to be able to use the ABI in conversation without lipreading. CONCLUSIONS: Although the medical risks and surgical complexity associated with ABI device implantation are far greater than those for a cochlear implant, the clinical results from this trial show that the Nucleus multichannel ABI is capable of providing a significant patient benefit over risk ratio for subjects suffering loss of hearing due to bilateral retrocochlear lesions.