Effect of Cochlear Implant Electrode Array Design on Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Measures: Lateral Wall versus Perimodiolar Types
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
초록
Background and Objectives: The present study aims to investigate whether the cochlear implant electrode array design affects the electrophysiological and psychophysical measures. Subjects and Methods: Eighty five ears were used as data in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups by the electrode array design: lateral wall type (LW) and perimodiolar type (PM). The electrode site was divided into three regions (basal, medial, apical). The evoked compound action potential (ECAP) threshold, T level, C level, dynamic range (DR), and aided air conduction threshold were measured. Results: The ECAP threshold was lower for the PM than for the LW, and decreased as the electrode site was closer to the apical region. The T level was lower for the PM than for the LW, and was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The C level on the basal region was lower for the PM than for the LW whereas the C level was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The DRs on the apical region was greater for the PM than for the LW whereas the DR was narrower on the apical region than on the other regions. The aided air conduction threshold was not different for the electrode design and frequency. Conclusions: The current study would support the advantages of the PM over the LW in that the PM had the lower current level and greater DR, which could result in more localized neural stimulation and reduced power consumption.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The present study aims to investigate whether the cochlear implant electrode array design affects the electrophysiological and psychophysical measures. Subjects and Methods: Eighty five ears were used as data in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups by the electrode array design: lateral wall type (LW) and perimodiolar type (PM). The electrode site was divided into three regions (basal, medial, apical). The evoked compound action potential (ECAP) threshold, T level, C level, dynamic range (DR), and aided air conduction threshold were measured. Results: The ECAP threshold was lower for the PM than for the LW, and decreased as the electrode site was closer to the apical region. The T level was lower for the PM than for the LW, and was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The C level on the basal region was lower for the PM than for the LW whereas the C level was lower on the apical region than on the other regions. The DRs on the apical region was greater for the PM than for the LW whereas the DR was narrower on the apical region than on the other regions. The aided air conduction threshold was not different for the electrode design and frequency. Conclusions: The current study would support the advantages of the PM over the LW in that the PM had the lower current level and greater DR, which could result in more localized neural stimulation and reduced power consumption.
참고문헌 (28)
- Paul PV, "Hearing and deafness: an introduction for health and education professionals", pp.109~138 (2011), Jones and Bartlett Publishers
- Rebscher SJ, "Considerations for design of future cochlear implant electrode arrays: electrode array stiffness, size, and depth of insertion", J Rehabil Res Dev, 45, pp.731~747 (2008)
- Bierer JA, "Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation", Trends Amplif, 14, pp.84~95 (2010)
- Wanna GB, "Impact of electrode design and surgical approach on scalar location and cochlear implant outcomes", Laryngoscope, 124(Suppl 6), pp.S1~S7 (2014)
- Skarzynski H, "Partial deafness treatment with the nucleus straight research array cochlear implant", Audiol Neurootol, 17, pp.82~91 (2012)
- Gibson P, "Optimal electrode design: straight versus perimodiolar", Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis, 133(Suppl 1), pp.S63~S65 (2016)
- Sennaroglu L., "Cochlear implantation in inner ear malformations--a review article", Cochlear Implants Int, 11, pp.4~41 (2010)
- Gstoettner WK, "Perimodiolar electrodes in cochlear implant surgery", Acta Otolaryngol, 121, pp.216~219 (2001)
- Goldwyn JH, "Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration", Hear Res, 268, pp.93~104 (2010)
- Hughes ML, "A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants", J Acoust Soc Am, 124, pp.2711~2714 (2008)
- Shepherd RK, "Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: the effect of electrode position on neural excitation", Hear Res, 66, pp.108~120 (1993)
- Raghunandhan S, "Ranjith R. Electrophysiological correlates of behavioral comfort levels in cochlear implantees: a prospective study", Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 67, pp.210~222 (2015)
- Frijns JH, "Potential distributions and neural excitation patterns in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea", Hear Res, 87, pp.170~186 (1995)
- Parkinson AJ, "The nucleus 24 contour cochlea implant system: adult clinical trial results", Ear Hear, 23(1 Suppl), pp.41S~48S (2002)
- Cohen LT, "Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array", Hear Res, 155, pp.63~81 (2001)
- Hughes ML, "Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays", J Acoust Soc Am, 119, pp.1538~1547 (2006)
- Telmesani LM, "Effect of cochlear implant electrode array design of auditory nerve and behavioral response in children", Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 79, pp.660~665 (2015)
- Spivak L, "Popecki B. Eletrical compound action potentials recorded with automated neural response telemetry: threshold changes as a function of time and electrode position", Ear Hear, 32, pp.104~113 (2011)
- van de Heyning P, "Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation", Cochlear Implants Int, 17, pp.251~262 (2016)
- Huang TC, "Modiolar coiling, electrical thresholds, and speech perception after cochlear implantation using the nucleus contour advance electrode with the advance off stylet technique", Otol Neurotol, 27, pp.159~166 (2006)
- Guedes MC, "Influence of evoked compound action potential on speech perception in cochlear implant users", Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 73, pp.439~445 (2007)
- Gordon KA, "Activity-dependent develop mental plasticity of the auditory brain stem in children who use cochlear implants", Ear Hear, 24, pp.485~500 (2003)
- Saunders E, "Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance", Ear Hear, 23(1 Suppl), pp.28S~40S (2002)
- Ramos de Miguel Á, "Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 275, pp.1385~1394 (2018)
- van Wermeskerken GK, "Imaging of electrode position in relation to electrode functioning after cochlear implantation", Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 266, pp.1527~1531 (2009)
- Gordin A, "Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological response in children", Otol Neurotol, 30, pp.908~915 (2009)
- Rakszawski B, "The effects of preprocessing strategies for pediatric cochlear implant recipients", J Am Acad Audiol, 27, pp.85~102 (2016)
- Skinner MW, "Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance", Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 191, pp.4~13 (2003)