The Relationship Between Interaural Insertion-Depth Differences, Scalar Location, and Interaural Time-Difference Processing in Adult Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITDs) in acoustic hearing involves comparison of interaurally frequency-matched inputs. Bilateral cochlear-implant arrays are, however, only approximately aligned in angular insertion depth and scalar location across the cochleae. Interaural place-of-stimulation mismatch therefore has the potential to impact binaural perception. ITD left-right discrimination thresholds were examined in 23 postlingually-deafened adult bilateral cochlear-implant listeners, using low-rate constant-amplitude pulse trains presented via direct stimulation to single electrodes in each ear. Angular insertion depth and scalar location measured from computed-tomography (CT) scans were used to quantify interaural mismatch, and their association with binaural performance was assessed. Number-matched electrodes displayed a median interaural insertion-depth mismatch of 18° and generally yielded best or near-best ITD discrimination thresholds. Two listeners whose discrimination thresholds did not show this pattern were confirmed via CT to have atypical array placement. Listeners with more number-matched electrode pairs located in the scala tympani displayed better thresholds than listeners with fewer such pairs. ITD tuning curves as a function of interaural electrode separation were broad; bandwidths at twice the threshold minimum averaged 10.5 electrodes (equivalent to 5.9 mm for a Cochlear-brand pre-curved array). Larger angular insertion-depth differences were associated with wider bandwidths. Wide ITD tuning curve bandwidths appear to be a product of both monopolar stimulation and angular insertion-depth mismatch. Cases of good ITD sensitivity with very wide bandwidths suggest that precise matching of insertion depth is not critical for discrimination thresholds. Further prioritizing scala tympani location at implantation should, however, benefit ITD sensitivity.

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

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.

Relationship Between Electrode-to-Modiolus Distance and Current Levels for Adults With Cochlear Implants.

HYPOTHESIS: Electrode-to-modiolus distance is correlated with clinically programmed stimulation levels. BACKGROUND: Conventional wisdom has long supposed a significant relationship between cochlear implant (CI) stimulation levels and electrode-to-modiolus distance; however, to date, no such formal investigation has been completed. Thus, the purpose of this project was to investigate the relationship between stimulation levels and electrode-to-modiolus distance. A strong correlation between the two would suggest that stimulation levels might be used to estimate electrode-to-modiolus geometry. METHODS: Electrode-to-modiolus distance was determined via CT imaging using validated CI position analysis software in 137 implanted ears from the three manufacturers holding FDA approval in the United States. Analysis included 2,365 total electrodes, with 1,472 from precurved arrays. Distances were compared to clinically programmed C/M levels that were converted to charge units. RESULTS: Mean modiolar distance with perimodiolar and lateral wall electrodes was 0.47 and 1.15 mm, respectively. Mean suprathreshold charge values were significantly different between each manufacturer. When combining all data, we found a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.367, p < 0.01) that was driven both by the different charge values across companies, and that the company with the highest mean charge values only offers straight electrode arrays. When grouped by electrode type, however, we found a weak correlation (r = 0.12, p < 0.01) for perimodiolar array electrodes only. When considering a single array type from any one manufacturer, only one was observed where distance mildly predicted charge. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that electrode distance minimally contributes to the current level required for suprathreshold stimulation.