Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Peters JPM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6549524 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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.

Peters Jeroen P M JPM Bennink Edwin E van Zanten Gijsbert A GA

Audiology & neuro-otology 20190417 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to investigate if the type of electrode array design is of influence on the electric-acoustic pi ...[more]

PMID: 30995658

Similar Datasets

Project description:Experimental studies play an important role in establishing the safety and efficacy of cochlear implants and they continue to provide insight into a new generation of electrode arrays and stimulation strategies. One drawback has been the limited depth of insertion of an electrode array in experimental animals. We compared the insertion depth and trauma associated with the insertion of Cochlear Ltd's Hybrid-L (HL) array with a standard 8 ring array in cat cochleae. Both arrays were inserted into cadaver cochleae and an X-ray recorded their anatomical location. The implanted cochlea was serially sectioned and photographed at 300 ?m intervals for evidence of electrode insertion trauma. Subsequently two cats were chronically implanted with HL arrays and electrically-evoked potentials recorded over a three month period. Mean insertion depth for the HL arrays was 334.8° (SD = 21°; n = 4) versus 175.5° (SD = 6°; n = 2) for the standard array. This relates to ?10.5 mm and 6 mm respectively. A similar insertion depth was measured in a chronically implanted animal with an HL array. Histology from each cadaver cochleae showed that the electrode array was always located in the scala tympani; there was no evidence of electrode insertion trauma to the basilar membrane, the osseous spiral lamina or the spiral ligament. Finally, evoked potential data from the chronically implanted animals exhibited significantly lower thresholds compared with animals implanted with a standard 8 ring array, with electrical thresholds remaining stable over a three-month observation period. Cochlear Ltd's HL electrode array can be safely inserted ?50% of the length of the cat scala tympani, placing the tip of the array close to the 4 kHz place. This insertion depth is considerably greater than is routinely achieved using a standard 8-ring electrode array (?12 kHz place). The HL array evokes low thresholds that remain stable over three months of implantation. This electrode array has potential application in a broad area of cochlear implant related research.

Project description:ImportanceCochlear implant users generally display poor pitch perception. Flat-panel computed tomography (FPCT) has recently emerged as a modality capable of localizing individual electrode contacts within the cochlea in vivo. Significant place-pitch mismatch between the clinical implant processing settings given to patients and the theoretical maps based on FPCT imaging has previously been noted.ObjectiveTo assess whether place-pitch mismatch is associated with poor cochlear implant-mediated pitch perception through evaluation of an individualized, image-guided approach toward cochlear implant programming on speech and music perception among cochlear implant users.Design, setting, and participantsA prospective cohort study of 17 cochlear implant users with MED-EL electrode arrays was performed at a tertiary referral center. The study was conducted from June 2016 to July 2017.InterventionsTheoretical place-pitch maps using FPCT secondary reconstructions and 3-dimensional curved planar re-formation software were developed. The clinical map settings (eg, strategy, rate, volume, frequency band range) were modified to keep factors constant between the 2 maps and minimize confounding. The acclimation period to the maps was 30 minutes.Main outcomes and measuresParticipants performed speech perception tasks (eg, consonant-nucleus-consonant, Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise, vowel identification) and a pitch-scaling task while using the image-guided place-pitch map (intervention) and the modified clinical map (control). Performance scores between the 2 interventions were measured.ResultsOf the 17 participants, 10 (58.8%) were women; mean (SD) was 59 (11.3) years. A significant median increase in pitch scaling accuracy was noted when using the experimental map compared with the control map (4 more correct answers; 95% CI, 0-8). Specifically, the number of pitch-scaling reversals for notes spaced at 1.65 semitones or greater decreased when an image-based approach to cochlear implant programming was used vs the modified clinical map (4 mistakes; 95% CI, 0.5-7). Although there was no observable median improvement in speech perception during use of an image-based map, the acute changes in frequency allocation and electrode channel deactivations used with the image-guided maps did not worsen consonant-nucleus-consonant (-1% correct phonemes, 95% CI, -2.5% to 6%) and Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise (0.5-dB difference; 95% CI, -0.75 to 2.25 dB) median performance results relative to the clinical maps used by the patients.Conclusions and relevanceAn image-based approach toward ochlear implant mapping may improve pitch perception outcomes by reducing place-pitch mismatch. Studies using a longer acclimation period with chronic stimulation over months may help assess the full range of the benefits associated with personalized image-guided cochlear implant mapping.

Project description:HypothesisInsertion forces can be reduced by magnetically guiding the tip of lateral-wall cochlear-implant electrode arrays during insertion via both cochleostomy and the round window.BackgroundSteerable electrode arrays have the potential to minimize intracochlear trauma by reducing the severity of contact between the electrode-array tip and the cochlear wall. However, steerable electrode arrays typically have increased stiffness associated with the steering mechanism. In addition, steerable electrode arrays are typically designed to curve in the direction of the basal turn, which is not ideal for round-window insertions, as the cochlear hook's curvature is in the opposite direction. Lateral-wall electrode arrays can be modified to include magnets at their tips, augmenting their superior flexibility with a steering mechanism. By applying magnetic torque to the tip, an electrode array can be navigated through the cochlear hook and the basal turn.MethodsAutomated insertions of candidate electrode arrays are conducted into a scala-tympani phantom with either a cochleostomy or round-window opening. The phantom is mounted on a multi-degree-of-freedom force sensor. An external magnet applies the necessary magnetic bending torque to the magnetic tip of a modified clinical electrode array, coordinated with the insertion, with the goal of directing the tip down the lumen. Steering of the electrode array is verified through a camera.ResultsStatistical t-test results indicate that magnetic guidance does reduce insertion forces by as much as 50% with certain electrode-array models. Direct tip contact with the medial wall through the cochlear hook and the lateral wall of the basal turn is completely eliminated. The magnetic field required to accomplish these insertions varied from 77 to 225 mT based on the volume of the magnet at the tip of the electrode array. Alteration of the tip to accommodate a tiny magnet is minimal and does not change the insertion characteristic of the electrode array unless the tip shape is altered.ConclusionMagnetic guidance can eliminate direct tip contact with the medial walls through the cochlear hook and the lateral walls of the basal turn. Insertion-force reduction will vary based on the electrode-array model, but is statistically significant for all models tested. Successful steering of lateral-wall electrode arrays is accomplished while maintaining its superior flexibility.

Project description:ObjectivesThe spatial position of a cochlear implant (CI) electrode array affects the spectral cues provided to the recipient. Differences in cochlear size and array length lead to substantial variability in angular insertion depth (AID) across and within array types. For CI-alone users, the variability in AID results in varying degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch between the default electric frequency filters and cochlear place of stimulation. For electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) users, default electric frequency filters also vary as a function of residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. The present study aimed to (1) investigate variability in AID associated with lateral wall arrays, (2) determine the subsequent frequency-to-place mismatch for CI-alone and EAS users mapped with default frequency filters, and (3) examine the relationship between early speech perception for CI-alone users and two aspects of electrode position: frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation between neighboring contacts, a metric associated with spectral selectivity at the periphery.DesignOne hundred one adult CI recipients (111 ears) with MED-EL Flex24 (24 mm), Flex28 (28 mm), and FlexSOFT/Standard (31.5 mm) arrays underwent postoperative computed tomography to determine AID. A subsequent comparison was made between AID, predicted spiral ganglion place frequencies, and the default frequency filters for CI-alone (n = 84) and EAS users (n = 27). For CI-alone users with complete insertions who listened with maps fit with the default frequency filters (n = 48), frequency-to-place mismatch was quantified at 1500 Hz and angular separation between neighboring contacts was determined for electrodes in the 1 to 2 kHz region. Multiple linear regression was used to examine how frequency-to-place mismatch and angular separation of contacts influence consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) scores through 6 months postactivation.ResultsFor CI recipients with complete insertions (n = 106, 95.5%), the AID (mean ± standard deviation) of the most apical contact was 428° ± 34.3° for Flex24 (n = 11), 558° ± 65.4° for Flex28 (n = 48), and 636° ± 42.9° for FlexSOFT/Standard (n = 47) arrays. For CI-alone users, default frequency filters aligned closely with the spiral ganglion map for deeply inserted lateral wall arrays. For EAS users, default frequency filters produced a range of mismatches; absolute deviations of ≤ 6 semitones occurred in only 37% of cases. Participants with shallow insertions and minimal or no residual hearing experienced the greatest mismatch. For CI-alone users, both smaller frequency-to-place mismatch and greater angular separation between contacts were associated with better CNC scores during the initial 6 months of device use.ConclusionsThere is significant variability in frequency-to-place mismatch among CI-alone and EAS users with default frequency filters, even between individuals implanted with the same array. When using default frequency filters, mismatch can be minimized with longer lateral wall arrays and insertion depths that meet the edge frequency associated with residual hearing for CI-alone and EAS users, respectively. Smaller degrees of frequency-to-place mismatch and decreased peripheral masking due to more widely spaced contacts may independently support better speech perception with longer lateral wall arrays in CI-alone users.

Dataset Information

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

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets