Electro-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant

Electrocochleography-Based Tonotopic Map: II. Frequency-to-Place Mismatch Impacts Speech-Perception Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients

OBJECTIVES

Modern cochlear implants (CIs) use varying-length electrode arrays inserted at varying insertion angles within variably sized cochleae. Thus, there exists an opportunity to enhance CI performance, particularly in postlinguistic adults, by optimizing the frequency-to-place allocation for electrical stimulation, thereby minimizing the need for central adaptation and plasticity. There has been interest in applying Greenwood or Stakhovskaya et al. function (describing the tonotopic map) to postoperative imaging of electrodes to improve frequency allocation and place coding. Acoustically-evoked electrocochleography (ECochG) allows for electrophysiologic best-frequency (BF) determination of CI electrodes and the potential for creating a personalized frequency allocation function. The objective of this study was to investigate the correlation between early speech-perception performance and frequency-to-place mismatch.

DESIGN

This retrospective study included 50 patients who received a slim perimodiolar electrode array. Following electrode insertion, five acoustic pure-tone stimuli ranging from 0.25 to 2 kHz were presented, and electrophysiological measurements were collected across all 22 electrode contacts. Cochlear microphonic tuning curves were subsequently generated for each stimulus frequency to ascertain the BF electrode or the location corresponding to the maximum response amplitude. Subsequently, we calculated the difference between the stimulus frequency and the patient's CI map's actual frequency allocation at each BF electrode, reflecting the frequency-to-place mismatch. BF electrocochleography-total response (BF-ECochG-TR), a measure of cochlear health, was also evaluated for each subject to control for the known impact of this measure on performance.

RESULTS

Our findings showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.51; 95% confidence interval: 0.23 to 0.76) between the cumulative frequency-to-place mismatch, as determined using the ECochG-derived BF map (utilizing 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz), and 3-month performance on consonant-nucleus-consonant words (N = 38). Larger positive mismatches, shifted basal from the BF map, led to enhanced speech perception. Incorporating BF-ECochG-TR, total mismatch, and their interaction in a multivariate model explained 62% of the variance in consonant-nucleus-consonant word scores at 3 months. BF-ECochG-TR as a standalone predictor tended to overestimate performance for subjects with larger negative total mismatches and underestimated the performance for those with larger positive total mismatches. Neither cochlear diameter, number of cochlear turns, nor apical insertion angle accounted for the variability in total mismatch.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of ECochG-BF derived tonotopic electrode maps to the frequency allocation tables reveals substantial mismatch, explaining 26.0% of the variability in CI performance in quiet. Closer examination of the mismatch shows that basally shifted maps at high frequencies demonstrate superior performance at 3 months compared with those with apically shifted maps (toward Greenwood and Stakhovskaya et al.). The implications of these results suggest that electrophysiological-based frequency reallocation might lead to enhanced speech-perception performance, especially when compared with conventional manufacturer maps or anatomic-based mapping strategies. Future research, exploring the prospective use of ECochG-based mapping techniques for frequency allocation is underway.

Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All

HYPOTHESIS

This study tests the hypothesis that it is possible to find tone or noise vocoders that sound similar and result in similar speech perception scores to a cochlear implant (CI). This would validate the use of such vocoders as acoustic models of CIs. We further hypothesize that those valid acoustic models will require a personalized amount of frequency mismatch between input filters and output tones or noise bands.

BACKGROUND

Noise or tone vocoders have been used as acoustic models of CIs in hundreds of publications but have never been convincingly validated.

METHODS

Acoustic models were evaluated by single-sided deaf CI users who compared what they heard with the CI in one ear to what they heard with the acoustic model in the other ear. We evaluated frequency-matched models (both all-channel and 6-channel models, both tone and noise vocoders) as well as self-selected models that included an individualized level of frequency mismatch.

RESULTS

Self-selected acoustic models resulted in similar levels of speech perception and similar perceptual quality as the CI. These models also matched the CI in terms of perceived intelligibility, harshness, and pleasantness.

CONCLUSION

Valid acoustic models of CIs exist, but they are different from the models most widely used in the literature. Individual amounts of frequency mismatch may be required to optimize the validity of the model. This may be related to the basalward frequency mismatch experienced by postlingually deaf patients after cochlear implantation.

Melodic interval perception with acoustic and electric hearing in bimodal and single-sided deaf cochlear implant listeners

Two notes sounded sequentially elicit melodic intervals and contours that form the basis of melody. Many previous studies have characterized pitch perception in cochlear implant (CI) users to be poor which may be due to the limited spectro-temporal resolution and/or spectral warping with electric hearing compared to acoustic hearing (AH). Poor pitch perception in CIs has been shown to distort melodic interval perception. To characterize this interval distortion, we recruited CI users with either normal (single sided deafness, SSD) or limited (bimodal) AH in the non-implanted ear. The contralateral AH allowed for a stable reference with which to compare melodic interval perception in the CI ear, within the same listener. Melodic interval perception was compared across acoustic and electric hearing in 9 CI listeners (4 bimodal and 5 SSD). Participants were asked to rank the size of a probe interval presented to the CI ear to a reference interval presented to the contralateral AH ear using a method of constant stimuli. Ipsilateral interval ranking was also measured within the AH ear to ensure that listeners understood the task and that interval ranking was stable and accurate within AH. Stimuli were delivered to the AH ear via headphones and to the CI ear via direct audio input (DAI) to participants' clinical processors. During testing, a reference and probe interval was presented and participants indicated which was larger. Ten comparisons for each reference-probe combination were presented. Psychometric functions were fit to the data to determine the probe interval size that matched the reference interval. Across all AH reference intervals, the mean matched CI interval was 1.74 times larger than the AH reference. However, there was great inter-subject variability. For some participants, CI interval distortion varied across different reference AH intervals; for others, CI interval distortion was constant. Within the AH ear, ipsilateral interval ranking was accurate, ensuring that participants understood the task. No significant differences in the patterns of results were observed between bimodal and SSD CI users. The present data show that much larger intervals were needed with the CI to match contralateral AH reference intervals. As such, input melodic patterns are likely to be perceived as frequency compressed and/or warped with electric hearing, with less variation among notes in the pattern. The high inter-subject variability in CI interval distortion suggests that CI signal processing should be optimized for individual CI users.

Assessment of Frequency-Place Mismatch by Flat-Panel CT and Correlation With Cochlear Implant Performance

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the frequency allocation mismatch in a group of very selected cochlear implant (CI) recipients and to contrast it with the speech perception performances.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational prospective study.

SETTINGS

Tertiary Audiological Department, University hospital.

PATIENTS

Fifteen adults receiving the same CI array by the same surgeon through a posterior tympanotomy, round window approach.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

1) High definition flat panel computed tomography (FPCT) control of the intracochlear position of each electrode contact, and computation of the relative frequency allocation mismatch; 2) analysis of speech perception outcomes in relation with the mismatch.

RESULTS

Despite a consistent and reproducible surgical procedure with the same intracochlear array, significant deviations from the frequency allocation tables (FAT) assigned by default by the manufacturer were observed in this study.Their influences on speech perception performances were negligible in the simple tasks of words or sentences recognition in quiet (and, to a lesser extent also in noise). The greatest effect of a significant mismatch was observed for the vocal-consonant-vocal (VCV) sequences recognition under noise masking, the emotional and the linguistic prosody recognition, and the phonemes discrimination of the Auditory Speech Sound Evaluation (A§E) test.

CONCLUSIONS

The greatest frequency-to-place occurred at the high frequencies. The effect was rather irrelevant on simple words and sentences recognition, while it negatively impacted on the more complex perceptual tasks.

Comparison of Speech Recognition and Localization Ability in Single-sided Deaf Patients Implanted With Different Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Designs

OBJECTIVE

Choice of electrode array (EA) design and differences in outcome are major concerns both to patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) and to surgeons before cochlear implant (CI) surgery. The present work investigates the effects of EA design on 1) insertion depths, and 2) audiological outcomes of SSD CI recipients.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

Forty patients with acquired SSD matched according to duration of deafness MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:: Fourteen CI recipients were implanted with a perimodiolar electrode (cochlear perimodiolar [CPM]), 12 with a shorter lateral wall electrode (cochlear lateral wall [CLW]), and 14 with a longer lateral wall electrode array (medEl lateral wall [MLW]). Postoperative rotational tomography was evaluated to determine cochlear size and EA angle of insertion depth (AID). Binaural speech comprehension in noise (in three configuration presentations) and localization ability were assessed 12 months postoperatively with CI.

RESULTS

AID was significantly deeper in MLW (mean 527.94 degrees) compared with the CPM (mean 366.35 degrees) and CLW groups (mean 367.01 degrees). No significant difference in AID was seen between the CPM and CLW groups (difference 0.66 degrees). Cochlear sizes revealed no significant differences between any groups. All three groups showed significant improvement in head shadow effect (difference on average CPM: 6.3 dB SPL, CLW 5 dB SPL, and MLW 4.05 dB SPL) and localization ability at 12 months postoperatively (difference on average CPM: 19.72 degrees, CLW: 24 degrees, and MLW: 12.9 degrees). No significant difference in the extent of audiological benefit was observed between any groups.

CONCLUSION

No effect on binaural benefit was apparent from the selection of the three EA designs in SSD CI recipients. Further studies focusing on subjective results, sound quality, and music perception depending on EA design in SSD CI recipients are needed.

Characterization of the human helicotrema: implications for cochlear duct length and frequency mapping

Background

Despite significant anatomical variation amongst patients, cochlear implant frequency-mapping has traditionally followed a patient-independent approach. Basilar membrane (BM) length is required for patient-specific frequency-mapping, however cochlear duct length (CDL) measurements generally extend to the apical tip of the entire cochlea or have no clearly defined end-point. By characterizing the length between the end of the BM and the apical tip of the entire cochlea (helicotrema length), current CDL models can be corrected to obtain the appropriate BM length. Synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging has made this analysis possible due to the soft-tissue contrast through the entire cochlear apex.

Methods

Helicotrema linear length and helicotrema angular length measurements were performed on synchrotron radiation phase-contrast imaging data of 14 cadaveric human cochleae. On a sub-set of six samples, the CDL to the apical tip of the entire cochlea (CDL_TIP) and the BM length (CDL_BM) were determined. Regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between CDL_TIP and CDL_BM.

Results

The mean helicotrema linear length and helicotrema angular length values were 1.6 ± 0.9 mm and 67.8 ± 37.9 degrees, respectively. Regression analysis revealed the following relationship between CDL_TIP and CDL_BM: CDL_BM = 0.88(CDL_TIP) + 3.71 (R² = 0.995).

Conclusion

This is the first known study to characterize the length of the helicotrema in the context of CDL measurements. It was determined that the distance between the end of the BM and the tip of the entire cochlea is clinically consequential. A relationship was determined that can predict the BM length of an individual patient based on their respective CDL measured to the apical tip of the cochlea.

Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type

Previous studies in patients with single-sided deafness (SSD) have reported results of pitch comparisons between electric stimulation of their cochlear implant (CI) and acoustic stimulation presented to their near-normal hearing contralateral ear. These comparisons typically used sinusoids, although the percept elicited by electric stimulation may be closer to a wideband stimulus. Furthermore, it has been shown that pitch comparisons between sounds with different timbres is a difficult task and subjected to various types of range biases. The present study aims to introduce a method to minimize non-sensory biases, and to investigate the effect of different acoustic stimulus types on the frequency and variability of the electric-acoustic pitch matches. Pitch matches were collected from 13 CI users with SSD using the binary search procedure. Electric stimulation was presented at either an apical or a middle electrode position, at a rate of 800 pps. Acoustic stimulus types were sinusoids (SINE), 1/3-octave wide narrow bands of Gaussian noises (NBN), or 1/3-octave wide pulse spreading harmonic complexes (PSHC). On the one hand, NBN and PSHC are presumed to better mimic the spread of excitation produced by a single-electrode stimulation than SINE. On the other hand, SINE and PSHC contain less inherent fluctuations than NBN and may therefore provide a temporal pattern closer to that produced by a constant-amplitude electric pulse train. Analysis of mean pitch match variance showed no differences between stimulus types. However, mean pitch matches showed effects of electrode position and stimulus type, with the middle electrode always matched to a higher frequency than the apical one (p < 0.001), and significantly higher across-subject pitch matches for PSHC compared with SINE (p = 0.017). Mean pitch matches for all stimulus types were better predicted by place-dependent characteristic frequencies (CFs) based on an organ of Corti map compared with a spiral ganglion map. CF predictions were closest to pitch matches with SINE for the apical electrode position, and conversely with NBN or PSHC for the middle electrode position. These results provide evidence that the choice of acoustic stimulus type can have a significant effect on electric-acoustic pitch matching.

An auditory brainstem implant for treatment of unilateral tinnitus: protocol for an interventional pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Tinnitus may have a very severe impact on the quality of life. Unfortunately, for many patients, a satisfactory treatment modality is lacking. The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) was originally indicated for hearing restoration in patients with non-functional cochlear nerves, for example, in neurofibromatosis type II. In analogy to a cochlear implant (CI), it has been demonstrated that an ABI may reduce tinnitus as a beneficial side effect. For tinnitus treatment, an ABI may have an advantage over a CI, as cochlear implantation can harm inner ear structures due to its invasiveness, while an ABI is presumed to not damage anatomical structures. This is the first study to implant an ABI to investigate its effect on intractable tinnitus.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this pilot study, 10 adults having incapacitating unilateral intractable tinnitus and ipsilateral severe hearing loss will have an ABI implanted. The ABI is switched on 6 weeks after implantation, followed by several fitting sessions aimed at finding an optimal stimulation strategy. The primary outcome will be the change in Tinnitus Functioning Index. Secondary outcomes will be tinnitus burden and quality of life (using Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires), tinnitus characteristics (using Visual Analogue Scale, a tinnitus analysis), safety, audiometric and vestibular function. The end point is set at 1 year after implantation. Follow-up will continue until 5 years after implantation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands (METc 2015/479). The trial is registered at www.clinicialtrials.gov and will be updated if amendments are made. Results of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02630589.

TRIAL STATUS

Inclusion of first patient in November 2017. Data collection is in progress. Trial is open for further inclusion. The trial ends at 5 years after inclusion of the last patient.

Comparison of Place-versus-Pitch Mismatch between a Perimodiolar and Lateral Wall Cochlear Implant Electrode Array in Patients with Single-Sided Deafness and a Cochlear Implant

BACKGROUND

In electric-acoustic pitch matching experiments in patients with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant, the observed "mismatch" between perceived pitch and predicted pitch, based on the amended Greenwood frequency map, ranges from -1 to -2 octaves. It is unknown if and how this mismatch differs for perimodiolar versus lateral wall electrode arrays.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate if the type of electrode array design is of influence on the electric-acoustic pitch match.

METHOD

Fourteen patients (n = 8 with CI422 + lateral wall electrode array, n = 6 with CI512 + perimodiolar electrode array; Cochlear Ltd.) compared the pitch of acoustic stimuli to the pitch of electric stimuli at two test sessions (average interval 4.3 months). We plotted these "pitch matches" per electrode contact against insertion angle, calculated from high-resolution computed tomography scans. The difference between these pitch matches and two references (the spiral ganglion map and the default frequency allocation by Cochlear Ltd.) was defined as "mismatch."

RESULTS

We found average mismatches of -2.2 octaves for the CI422 group and -1.3 octaves for the CI512 group. For any given electrode contact, the mismatch was smaller for the CI512 electrode array than for the CI422 electrode array. For all electrode contacts together, there was a significant difference between the mismatches of the two groups (p < 0.05). Results remained stable over time, with no significant difference between the two test sessions considering all electrode contacts. Neither group showed a significant correlation between the mismatch and phoneme recognition scores.

CONCLUSION

The pitch mismatch was smaller for the perimodiolar electrode array than for the lateral wall electrode array.

Comparison between adaptive and adjustment procedures for binaural loudness balancing

Binaural loudness balancing is performed in research and clinical practice when fitting bilateral hearing devices, and is particularly important for bimodal listeners, who have a bilateral combination of a hearing aid and a cochlear implant. In this study, two psychophysical binaural loudness balancing procedures were compared. Two experiments were carried out. In the first experiment, the effect of procedure (adaptive or adjustment) on the balanced loudness levels was investigated using noise band stimuli, of which some had a frequency shift to simulate bimodal hearing. In the second experiment, the adjustment procedure was extended. The effect of the starting level of the adjustment procedure was investigated and the two procedures were again compared for different reference levels and carrier frequencies. Fourteen normal hearing volunteers participated in the first experiment, and 38 in the second experiment. Although the final averaged loudness balanced levels of both procedures were similar, the adjustment procedure yielded smaller standard deviations across four test sessions. The results of experiment 2 demonstrated that in order to avoid bias, the adjustment procedure should be conducted twice, once starting from below and once from above the expected balanced loudness level.

Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears

Advances in cochlear implant (CI) technology allow for acoustic and electric hearing to be combined within the same ear (electric-acoustic stimulation, or EAS) and/or across ears (bimodal listening). Integration efficiency (IE; the ratio between observed and predicted performance for acoustic-electric hearing) can be used to estimate how well acoustic and electric hearing are combined. The goal of this study was to evaluate factors that affect IE in EAS and bimodal listening. Vowel recognition was measured in normal-hearing subjects listening to simulations of unimodal, EAS, and bimodal listening. The input/output frequency range for acoustic hearing was 0.1–0.6 kHz. For CI simulations, the output frequency range was 1.2–8.0 kHz to simulate a shallow insertion depth and the input frequency range was varied to provide increasing amounts of speech information and tonotopic mismatch. Performance was best when acoustic and electric hearing was combined in the same ear. IE was significantly better for EAS than for bimodal listening; IE was sensitive to tonotopic mismatch for EAS, but not for bimodal listening. These simulation results suggest acoustic and electric hearing may be more effectively and efficiently combined within rather than across ears, and that tonotopic mismatch should be minimized to maximize the benefit of acoustic-electric hearing, especially for EAS.

Music perception improves in children with bilateral cochlear implants or bimodal devices

The objectives of this study were to determine if music perception by pediatric cochlear implant users can be improved by (1) providing access to bilateral hearing through two cochlear implants or a cochlear implant and a contralateral hearing aid (bimodal users) and (2) any history of music training. The Montreal Battery of Evaluation of Musical Ability test was presented via soundfield to 26 bilateral cochlear implant users, 8 bimodal users and 16 children with normal hearing. Response accuracy and reaction time were recorded via an iPad application. Bilateral cochlear implant and bimodal users perceived musical characteristics less accurately and more slowly than children with normal hearing. Children who had music training were faster and more accurate, regardless of their hearing status. Reaction time on specific subtests decreased with age, years of musical training and, for implant users, better residual hearing. Despite effects of these factors on reaction time, bimodal and bilateral cochlear implant users' responses were less accurate than those of their normal hearing peers. This means children using bilateral cochlear implants and bimodal devices continue to experience challenges perceiving music that are related to hearing impairment and/or device limitations during development.