The role of electroneural versus electrophonic stimulation on psychoacoustic electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing

Kipping, Daniel; Krüger, Benjamin; Nogueira, Waldo

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2020.108036

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the observations by Karsten et al (2013) may be explained by spectral interaction rather than spatial interaction. However, psychoacoustic EAS masking studies (Imsiecke et al 2018; Kipping et al 2020; Krüger et al 2017; Lin et al 2011) showed increased masking when the electric and the acoustic stimulation were delivered to similar spatial locations in the cochlea. Furthermore, Imsiecke et al (2020) showed a correlation between EAS masking and the deterioration of SRTs using overlapped with respect to non-overlapped fittings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In cochlear implants (CIs), phantom stimulation can be used to extend the pitch range toward apical regions of the cochlea. Phantom stimulation consists of partial bipolar stimulation, in which current is distributed across two intracochlear electrodes and one extracochlear electrode as defined by the compensation coefficient σ. The aim of this study was, (1) to evaluate the benefit of conveying low-frequency information through phantom stimulation for cochlear implant (CI) subjects with low-frequency residual hearing using electric stimulation alone, (2) to compare the speech reception thresholds obtained from electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) and electric stimulation in combination with phantom stimulation (EPS), and (3) to investigate the effect of spectrally overlapped bandwidth of speech conveyed via simultaneous acoustic and phantom stimulation on speech reception thresholds. Design: Fourteen CI users with ipsilateral residual hearing participated in a repeated-measures design. Phantom stimulation was used to extend the frequency bandwidth of electric stimulation of EAS users towards lower frequencies without changing their accustomed electrode-frequency allocation. Three phantom stimulation configurations with different σ’s were tested causing different degrees of electric field shaping towards apical regions of the cochlea that may affect the place of stimulation. A baseline configuration using a moderate value of σ (σ=0.375) for all subjects, a configuration that was equivalent to monopolar stimulation by setting σ to 0 (σ=0) and a configuration that used the largest value of σ for each individual subject (σMax). Speech reception thresholds were measured for electric stimulation alone, EAS and EPS. Additionally, acoustic stimulation and phantom stimulation were presented simultaneously (EAS+PS) to investigate their mutual interaction. Besides the spectral overlap, the electrode insertion depth obtained from cone-beam computed-tomography scans was determined to assess the impact of spatial overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation on speech reception. Results: Speech perception significantly improved by providing additional acoustic or phantom stimulation to electric stimulation. There was no significant difference between EAS and EPS. However, two of the tested subjects were able to perform the speech perception test using EAS but not using EPS. In comparison to the subject’s familiar EAS listening mode, the speech perception deteriorated when acoustic stimulation and phantom stimulation conveyed spectrally overlapped information simultaneously and this deterioration increased with larger spectral overlap Conclusions: (1) CI users with low-frequency acoustic residual hearing benefit from low-frequency information conveyed acoustically through combined EAS. (2) Improved speech reception thresholds through low-frequency information conveyed via phantom stimulation were observed for EAS subjects when acoustic stimulation was not used. (3) Speech perception was negatively affected...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Panels c and d of Fig. 4 depict the deviations of latency and jitter predicted by the uncoupled and the coupled EAS model from the analytical estimates (11) and (12). Since the analytical estimates were based on the assumption that spontaneous spikes and spikes evoked by ES would not interact, deviations from the estimates indicate an effect of (12)…”

Section: Experiments 2: the Novel Eas Model With Electric-only Stimul...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nonetheless, hybrid EAS can also cause interactions between both stimulation modalities that can hamper the perception of electric stimulation (ES) and acoustic stimulation (AS) and even limit the benefits in speech intelligibility [11]. Signals presented with ES and AS can mask each other when presented simultaneously [12][13][14][15] or in succession [16]. The origin of EAS interaction seems to be at least partly in the periphery as several studies using electrocochleography and electrically evoked compound action potentials in EAS users have shown [17][18][19][20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In animals, ES and AS can also interact through electrophonic stimulation of hair cells [27][28][29][30][31][32]. In human EAS users, however, electrophony seems to be less relevant due to high-frequency hearing loss [33,34] and was shown not to contribute to psychoacoustic EAS masking [12]. Therefore, it can be assumed that peripheral EAS interaction, relevant to human EAS subjects, originates in the auditory nerve.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Computational Model of a Single Auditory Nerve Fiber for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

Kipping

Nogueira

2022

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with preserved acoustic low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear are a growing group among traditional CI users who benefit from hybrid electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). However, combined ipsilateral electric and acoustic stimulation also introduces interactions between the two modalities that can affect the performance of EAS users. A computational model of a single auditory nerve fiber that is excited by EAS was developed to study the interaction between electric and acoustic stimulation. Two existing models of sole electric or acoustic stimulation were coupled to simulate responses to combined EAS. Different methods of combining both models were implemented. In the coupled model variant, the refractoriness of the simulated fiber leads to suppressive interaction between electrically evoked and acoustically evoked spikes as well as spontaneous activity. The second model variant is an uncoupled EAS model without electric-acoustic interaction. By comparing predictions between the coupled and the noninteracting EAS model, it was possible to infer electric-acoustic interaction at the level of the auditory nerve. The EAS model was used to simulate fiber populations with realistic inter-unit variability, where each unit was represented by the single-fiber model. Predicted thresholds and dynamic ranges, spike rates, latencies, jitter, and vector strengths were compared to empirical data. The presented EAS model provides a framework for future studies of peripheral electric-acoustic interaction.

show abstract

“…At present, treatment for hearing impairment is primarily administered through pharmacological treatment, hearing aid equipment, stem cell differentiation and transplantation (Oshima et al, 2010;Li et al, 2003;Chen et al, 2012), optogenetics (Huet et al, 2021), and electronic cochlear implantation (Wilson et al, 1991;Kipping et al, 2020;Gang et al, 2008). For patients with severe deafness, the most effective treatment is to surgically implant an electronic cochlea.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimal-invasive enhancement of auditory perception by terahertz wave modulation

Tan¹,

K²,

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing impairment is a common disease affecting a substantial proportion of the global population. Currently, the most effective clinical treatment for patients with sensorineural deafness is to implant an artificial electronic cochlea. However, the improvements to hearing perception are variable and limited among healthy subjects. Moreover, cochlear implants have disadvantages, such as crosstalk derived from the currents that spread into non-target tissue between the electrodes. Here, in this work, we describe terahertz wave modulation (THM), a new, minimally invasive technology that can enhance hearing perception in animals by reversible modulation of currents in cochlear hair cells. Using single-cell electrophysiology, guinea pig audiometry, and molecular dynamics simulations (MD), we show that THM can reversibly increase mechano-electrical transducer (MET)currents (~50% higher) and voltage-gated K+ currents in cochlear hair cells through collective resonance of −C=O groups. In addition, measurement of auditory brainstem response (ABR) in guinea pigs treated with THM indicated a ~10 times increase in hearing sensitivity. This study thus reports a new method of highly spatially selective hearing enhancement without introducing any exogeneous gene, which has potential applications for treatment of hearing disorders as well as several other areas of neuroscience.

show abstract

The role of electroneural versus electrophonic stimulation on psychoacoustic electric-acoustic masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing

Cited by 9 publications

References 42 publications

Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

A Computational Model of a Single Auditory Nerve Fiber for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

Minimal-invasive enhancement of auditory perception by terahertz wave modulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About