The multichannel auditory brainstem implant: how many electrodes make sense?

Johannes KuchtaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cologne University, Cologne, Germany; and House Ear Institute and Clinic, Los Angeles, California

Search for other papers by Johannes Kuchta in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.D.
,
Steven R. OttoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cologne University, Cologne, Germany; and House Ear Institute and Clinic, Los Angeles, California

Search for other papers by Steven R. Otto in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.A.
,
Robert V. ShannonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cologne University, Cologne, Germany; and House Ear Institute and Clinic, Los Angeles, California

Search for other papers by Robert V. Shannon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Ph.D.
,
William E. HitselbergerDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cologne University, Cologne, Germany; and House Ear Institute and Clinic, Los Angeles, California

Search for other papers by William E. Hitselberger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.D.
, and
Derald E. BrackmannDepartment of Neurosurgery, Cologne University, Cologne, Germany; and House Ear Institute and Clinic, Los Angeles, California

Search for other papers by Derald E. Brackmann in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.D.
View More View Less
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $525.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $624.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $525.00
USD  $624.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

Object. Development of multichannel auditory brainstem implant (ABI) systems has been based in part on the assumption that audiological outcome can be optimized by increasing the number of available electrodes. In this paper the authors critically analyze this assumption on the basis of a retrospective clinical study performed using the Nucleus 22 ABI surface electrode array.

Methods. The perceptual performances of 61 patients with neurofibromatosis Type 2 were tested approximately 6 weeks after an eight-electrode ABI had been implanted. Of eight implanted electrodes 5.57 ± 2.57 (mean ± standard deviation [SD] provided auditory sensations when stimulated. Electrodes were deactivated when stimulation resulted in significant nonauditory side effects or no auditory sensation at all, and also when they failed to provide distinctive pitch sensations. The mean (± SD) scores for patients with ABIs were the following: sound-only consonant recognition, 20.4 ± 14.3 (range 0–65%); vowel recognition, 28.8 ± 18% (range 0–67%); Monosyllable Trochee Spondee (MTS) word recognition 41.1 ± 25.3% (range 0–100%); and sentence recognition, 5.3 ± 11.4% (range 0–64%). Performance in patients in whom between one and three electrodes provided auditory sensation was significantly poorer than that in patients with between four and eight functional electrodes in the vowel, MTS word, and City University of New York (CUNY) sentence recognition tests. The correlation between performance and electrode number did not reach the 0.05 level of significance with respect to the sound effect, consonant, and MTS stress-pattern recognition tests, probably because a satisfactory performance in these tests can be obtained only with temporal cues, that is, without any information about the frequency of the sounds. In the MTS word and the CUNY sentence recognition tests, performance was optimal in the patients with eight functional electrodes. Although all top performers had more than three functional auditory electrodes, no further improvement (asymptotic performance) was seen in those with five or more active electrodes in the consonant, vowel, and sound effect recognition tests.

Conclusions. A minimum of three spectral channels, programmed in the appropriate individual tonotopic order seem to be required for satisfactory speech recognition in most patients with ABI. Due to the limited access to the tonotopic frequency gradient of the cochlear nucleus with surface stimulation, patients with ABI do not receive a wide range of spectral cues (frequency information) with multielectrode (> 5) surface arrays.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1.

    Blamey P, , Pyman B, & Gordon M, et al: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:342348, 1992 Blamey P, Pyman B, Gordon M, et al: Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 101:342–348, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Boothroyd A: CUNY Topic Related Sentence Test Laservideo Disk. New York: University of New York, 1998 (Video format) Boothroyd A: CUNY Topic Related Sentence Test Laservideo Disk. New York: University of New York, 1998 (Video format)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Bredberg G, & Lindstrom B: Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication performance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel-implanted patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:256258, 1995 Bredberg G, Lindstrom B: Insertion length of electrode array and its relation to speech communication performance and nonauditory side effects in multichannel-implanted patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:256–258, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Brill SM, , Gstottner W, & Helms J, et al: Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 18 (Suppl 6):S104S106, 1997 Brill SM, Gstottner W, Helms J, et al: Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am J Otol 18 (Suppl 6):S104–S106, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Dorman M, , Dankowski K, & McCandless G, et al: Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear Hear 10:288291, 1989 Dorman M, Dankowski K, McCandless G, et al: Consonant recognition as a function of the number of channels of stimulation by patients who use the Symbion cochlear implant. Ear Hear 10:288–291, 1989

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Dorman MF, , Loizou PC, & Rainey D: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 102:24032411, 1997 Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Rainey D: Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for signal processors using sine-wave and noise-band outputs. J Acoust Soc Am 102:2403–2411, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Elliott LL, & Katz DR: Development of a New Children's Test of Speech Discrimination. St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1980 (Audio format) Elliott LL, Katz DR: Development of a New Children's Test of Speech Discrimination. St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1980 (Audio format)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Erber NP, & Alencewicz CM: Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord 41:256267, 1976 Erber NP, Alencewicz CM: Audiologic evaluation of deaf children. J Speech Hear Disord 41:256–267, 1976

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Finitzo-Hieber T, , Matkin N, & Cherow-Skalka E, et al: Sound Effects Recognition Test (SERT). St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1977 (Audio format) Finitzo-Hieber T, Matkin N, Cherow-Skalka E, et al: Sound Effects Recognition Test (SERT). St. Louis, MO: Auditec, 1977 (Audio format)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Fishman KE, , Shannon RV, & Slattery WH: Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40:12011215, 1997 Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH: Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40:1201–1215, 1997

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Friesen LM, , Shannon RV, & Baskent D, et al: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:11501163, 2001 Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, et al: Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110:1150–1163, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Fu QJ, & Shannon RV: Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 105:18891900, 1999 Fu QJ, Shannon RV: Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1889–1900, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Hanekom JJ, & Shannon RV: Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 104:23722384, 1998 Hanekom JJ, Shannon RV: Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 104:2372–2384, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Holmes AE, , Kemker FJ, & Merwin GE: The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech perception. Am J Otol 8:240246, 1987 Holmes AE, Kemker FJ, Merwin GE: The effects of varying the number of cochlear implant electrodes on speech perception. Am J Otol 8:240–246, 1987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Kileny PR, , Zimmerman-Phillips S, & Zwolan TA, et al: Effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the Cochlear Corporation multichannel implant. Am J Otol 13:117123, 1992 Kileny PR, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Zwolan TA, et al: Effects of channel number and place of stimulation on performance with the Cochlear Corporation multichannel implant. Am J Otol 13:117–123, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Kuchta J, , Behr R, & Walger M, et al: Rehabilitation of hearing and communication functions in patients with NF2. Acta Neurochir Suppl 79:109111, 2002 Kuchta J, Behr R, Walger M, et al: Rehabilitation of hearing and communication functions in patients with NF2. Acta Neurochir Suppl 79:109–111, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Lamprecht A: Phoniatrische Aspekte bei der Rehabilitation von Cochlea-Implantat-Patienten. Laryngol Rhinol Otol 65:445449, 1986 Lamprecht A: Phoniatrische Aspekte bei der Rehabilitation von Cochlea-Implantat-Patienten. Laryngol Rhinol Otol 65:445–449, 1986

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Lawson DT, , Wilson BS, & Finley CC: New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Prog Brain Res 97:313321, 1993 Lawson DT, Wilson BS, Finley CC: New processing strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses. Prog Brain Res 97:313–321, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    McDermott HJ, , McKay CM, & Vandali AE: A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 91:33673371, 1992 McDermott HJ, McKay CM, Vandali AE: A new portable sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited multielectrode cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 91:3367–3371, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Nagafuchi M: Intelligibility of distorted speech sounds shifted in frequency and time in normal children. Audiology 15:326337, 1976 Nagafuchi M: Intelligibility of distorted speech sounds shifted in frequency and time in normal children. Audiology 15:326–337, 1976

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Otto SR, , Brackmann DE, & Hitselberger WE, et al: Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. J Neurosurg 96:10631071, 2002 Otto SR, Brackmann DE, Hitselberger WE, et al: Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. J Neurosurg 96:1063–1071, 2002

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Otto SR, , Ebinger K, & Staller SJ: Clinical trials with the auditory brain stem implant, in Waltzman SB, & Cohen NL (eds): Cochlear Implants. New York: Thieme, 2000, pp 357366 Otto SR, Ebinger K, Staller SJ: Clinical trials with the auditory brain stem implant, in Waltzman SB, Cohen NL (eds): Cochlear Implants. New York: Thieme, 2000, pp 357–366

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Otto SR, , Shannon RV, & Brackmann DE, et al: The multichannel auditory brainstem implant performance in twenty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118:291303, 1998 Otto SR, Shannon RV, Brackmann DE, et al: The multichannel auditory brainstem implant performance in twenty patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118:291–303, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336:367373, 1992 Rosen S: Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 336:367–373, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25.

    Seligman P, & McDermott H: Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:139141, 1995 Seligman P, McDermott H: Architecture of the Spectra 22 speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:139–141, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Shannon RV, , Zeng FG, & Kamath V, et al: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303304, 1995 Shannon RV, Zeng FG, Kamath V, et al: Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270:303–304, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Turner CW, , Souza PE, & Forget LN: Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97:25682576, 1995 Turner CW, Souza PE, Forget LN: Use of temporal envelope cues in speech recognition by normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 97:2568–2576, 1995

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Van Tasell DJ, , Greenfield DG, & Logemann JJ, et al: Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 92:12471257, 1992 Van Tasell DJ, Greenfield DG, Logemann JJ, et al: Temporal cues for consonant recognition: training, talker generalization, and use in evaluation of cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 92:1247–1257, 1992

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    Van Tasell DJ, , Soli SD, & Kirby VM, et al: Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 82:11521161, 1987 Van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, et al: Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1152–1161, 1987

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Zwolan TA, , Kileny PR, & Ashbaugh C, et al: Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation “20 + 2” implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am J Otol 17:717723, 1996 Zwolan TA, Kileny PR, Ashbaugh C, et al: Patient performance with the Cochlear Corporation “20 + 2” implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am J Otol 17:717–723, 1996

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 790 93 3
Full Text Views 171 8 1
PDF Downloads 122 8 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0