Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems

Kos, M. I.; Boëx, Colette; Sigrist, Alain; Guyot, Jean-Philippe; Pelizzone, M.

doi:10.1080/00016480510039995

Cited by 40 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The measurements of the mean insertion depth of all CI recipients in this study revealed 21.5 mm (SD, 1.1), which demonstrates that the intended depth was well achieved. In terms of estimating the coverage of the cochlear length, the angle of insertion is more meaningful than insertion length, considering that different arrays with similar insertion lengths occupy different positions inside the cochlea (23). Mean insertion angle for all CI recipients was 388 degrees (SD, 34.7) so that cochlear coverage is slightly more than just the basal turn (15).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologic Results and Hearing Preservation With a Straight Narrow Electrode via Round Window Versus Cochleostomy Approach at Initial Activation

Hassepaß¹,

Aschendorff²,

Bulla³

et al. 2015

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologic Results and Hearing Preservation With a Straight Narrow Electrode via Round Window Versus Cochleostomy Approach at Initial Activation

Hassepaß¹,

Aschendorff²,

Bulla³

et al. 2015

Otology &Amp; Neurotology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that the Schatzer et al (2014) insertion is similar to other insertions in the field. The 20% trimmed mean insertion of 31 mm MED-EL electrodes from the 8 additional studies (Baumann and Nobbe, 2004; Kos et al, 2005; Hamzavi and Arnoldner, 2006; Gani et al, 2007; Radeloff et al, 2008; Vermeire et al, 2008; Trieger et al, 2011; Landsberger et al, 2015) reported in Table 1 of Landsberger et al (2015) is 627°. We therefore anticipate that collapsing across electrode numbers instead of electrode angles will produce a similar but noisier result than had we collapsed across electrode position.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Although it has been previously shown that changes in temporal coding produce changes in pitch in all cochlear regions, research has suggested that temporal coding might be best encoded in relatively apical locations. We hypothesized that although temporal coding may provide useable information at any cochlear location, low rates of stimulation might provide better sound quality in apical regions that are more likely to encode temporal information in the normal ear. In the present study, sound qualities of single electrode pulse trains were scaled to provide insight into the combined effects of cochlear location and stimulation rate on sound quality. Design Ten long term users of MED-EL cochlear implants with 31 mm electrode arrays (Standard or FLEXSOFT) were asked to scale the sound quality of single electrode pulse trains in terms of how “Clean”, “Noisy”, “High”, and “Annoying” they sounded. Pulse trains were presented on most electrodes between 1 and 12 representing the entire range of the long electrode array at stimulation rates of 100, 150, 200, 400, or 1500 pulses per second. Results While high rates of stimulation are scaled as having a “Clean” sound quality across the entire array, only the most apical electrodes (typically 1 through 3) were considered “Clean” at low rates. Low rates on electrodes 6 through 12 were not rated as “Clean” while the low rate quality of electrodes 4 and 5 were typically in between. Scaling of “Noisy” responses provided an approximately inverse pattern as “Clean” responses. “High” responses show the trade-off between rate and place of stimulation on pitch. Because “High” responses did not correlate with “Clean” responses, subjects were not rating sound quality based on pitch. Conclusions If explicit temporal coding is to be provided in a cochlear implant, it is likely to sound better when provided apically. Additionally, the finding that low rates sound clean only at apical places of stimulation is consistent with previous findings that a change in rate of stimulation corresponds to an equivalent change in perceived pitch at apical locations. Collectively, the data strongly suggests that temporal coding with a cochlear implant is optimally provided by electrodes placed well into the second cochlear turn.

show abstract

“…These "modiolus-hugging" or "perimodiolar" electrodes extend deeper into the cochlea than straight electrodes of the same length. For this reason, in terms of estimating the coverage of the cochlear length, angle of insertion measures are more meaningful than insertion length (Kós et al 2005). Table 1 provides a summary of the dimensions of the electrode arrays from the currently available commercial devices.…”

Section: Electrode Design and Insertion Depthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Benefits From Deeply Inserted Cochlear Implant Electrodes

Boyd

2011

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits in terms of speech recognition and other performance measures are less clear. Several studies have indicated that deactivation of apical electrodes results in poorer speech recognition performance, but these have been mostly acute studies where the subjects have been accustomed to the full complement of electrodes, thus making interpretation difficult. Some chronic studies have suggested that apical electrodes do provide additional performance benefit, but others have shown performance improvement after deactivating some of the apical electrodes. Whether or not deeply inserted electrodes can offer performance benefits, there is evidence that currently available designs tend to produce more intracochlear trauma than shorter arrays, in terms of loss of residual acoustic hearing and reduction of the neural substrate. This may have important long-term consequences for the user. Furthermore, as it is possible that subjects with better low-frequency residual hearing are more likely to benefit from the inclusion of apical electrodes, there may be a potential clinical dilemma as the same subjects are those most likely to benefit from bimodal electroacoustic stimulation, requiring a relatively shallow insertion.

show abstract

Measurements of electrode position inside the cochlea for different cochlear implant systems

Cited by 40 publications

References 27 publications

Radiologic Results and Hearing Preservation With a Straight Narrow Electrode via Round Window Versus Cochleostomy Approach at Initial Activation

Radiologic Results and Hearing Preservation With a Straight Narrow Electrode via Round Window Versus Cochleostomy Approach at Initial Activation

Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant

Potential Benefits From Deeply Inserted Cochlear Implant Electrodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About