Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 4/2019

Open Access 01-08-2019 | Cochlear Implant | Research Article

Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners

Authors: Kelly N. Jahn, Julie G. Arenberg

Published in: Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

The physiological integrity of spiral ganglion neurons is presumed to influence cochlear implant (CI) outcomes, but it is difficult to measure neural health in CI listeners. Modeling data suggest that, when peripheral processes have degenerated, anodic stimulation may be a more effective neural stimulus than cathodic stimulation. The primary goal of the present study was to evaluate the emerging theory that polarity sensitivity reflects neural health in CI listeners. An ideal in vivo estimate of neural integrity should vary independently of other factors known to influence the CI electrode-neuron interface, such as electrode position and tissue impedances. Thus, the present analyses quantified the relationships between polarity sensitivity and (1) electrode position estimated via computed tomography imaging, (2) intracochlear resistance estimated via electrical field imaging, and (3) focused (steered quadrupolar) behavioral thresholds, which are believed to reflect a combination of local neural health, electrode position, and intracochlear resistance. Eleven adults with Advanced Bionics devices participated. To estimate polarity sensitivity, electrode-specific behavioral thresholds in response to monopolar, triphasic pulses where the central high-amplitude phase was either anodic (CAC) or cathodic (ACA) were measured. The polarity effect was defined as the difference in threshold response to the ACA compared to the CAC stimulus. Results indicated that the polarity effect was not related to electrode-to-modiolus distance, electrode scalar location, or intracochlear resistance. Large, positive polarity effects, which may indicate SGN degeneration, were associated with relatively high focused behavioral thresholds. The polarity effect explained a significant portion of the variation in focused thresholds, even after controlling for electrode position and intracochlear resistance. Overall, these results provide support for the theory that the polarity effect may reflect neural integrity in CI listeners. Evidence from this study supports further investigation into the use of polarity sensitivity for optimizing individual CI programming parameters.
Literature
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48CrossRef
Bierer JA (2007) Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J Acoust Soc Am 121:1642–1653CrossRefPubMed
Bierer JA, Faulkner KF (2010) Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves. Ear Hear 31:247–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Bierer JA, Litvak L (2016) Reducing channel interaction through cochlear implant programming may improve speech perception: current focusing and channel deactivation. Trends Hear 20:1–12
Bierer JA, Nye AD (2014) Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels. Ear Hear 35:641–651CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Bierer JA, Faulkner KF, Tremblay KL (2011) Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration. Ear Hear 32:436–444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Bierer JA, Bierer SM, Kreft HA, Oxenham AJ (2015a) A fast method for measuring psychophysical thresholds across the cochlear implant array. Trends Hear 19:1–12
Bierer SM, Shea-Brown E, Bierer JA (2015b) Current spread in the cochlea: insights from CT and electrical field imaging. Poster presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Tahoe, CA
Briare JJ, Frijns JHM (2000) Field patterns in a 3D tapered spiral model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res 148:18–30CrossRef
Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Macherey O (2013) Polarity effects on place pitch and loudness for three cochlear-implant designs and at different cochlear sites. J Acoust Soc Am 134:503–509CrossRefPubMed
Cohen J (1988) Set correlation and contingency tables. Appl Psychol Meas 12:425–434CrossRef
DeVries L, Arenberg JG (2018a) Psychophysical tuning curves as a correlate of electrode position in cochlear implant listeners. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 19:571–587CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
DeVries L, Scheperle R, Bierer JA (2016) Assessing the electrode-neuron interface with the electrically-evoked compound action potential, electrode position, and behavioral thresholds. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17:237–252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Dhanasingh A, Jolly C (2017) An overview of cochlear implant electrode array designs. Hear Res 356:93–103CrossRefPubMed
Dietz A, Wennström M, Lehtimäki A, Löppönen H, Valtonen H (2016) Electrode migration after cochlear implant surgery: more common than expected? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:1411–1418CrossRefPubMed
Friedland DR, Runge-Samuelson C, Baig H, Jensen J (2010) Case-control analysis of cochlear implant performance in elderly patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136:432–438CrossRefPubMed
Goldwyn JH, Bierer SA, Bierer JA (2010) Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration. Hear Res 268:93–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Holden LK, Finley CC, Firzst JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34:342–360CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Hughes ML, Goehring JL, Baudhuin JL (2017) Effects of stimulus polarity and artifact reduction method on the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 38:332–343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Hughes ML, Sangsook C, Glickman E (2018) What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients? Hear Res 359:50–63CrossRefPubMed
Hurvich CM, Tsai C (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76:297–307CrossRef
Jolly CN, Spelman FA, Clopton BM (1996) Quadrupolar stimulation for cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43:857–865CrossRefPubMed
Joshi SN, Dau T, Epp B (2017) A model of electrically stimulated auditory nerve fiber responses with peripheral and central sites of spike generation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18:323–342CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kamakura A, Nadol JB (2016) Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human. Hear Res 339:132–141CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kim J-R, Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Etler CP, O’Brien S, Kim L-S (2010) The relationship between electrically evoked compound action potential and speech perception: a study in cochlear implant users with short electrode array. Otol Neurotol 31:1041–1048CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kuznetsova A, Brokhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2017) lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw 82:1–26CrossRef
Lazard DS, Vincent C, Venail F, Van de Heyning P, Truy E, Sterkers O, Skarzynski PH, Skarzynski H, Schauwers L, O’Leary S, Mawman D, Maat B, Kleine-Punte A, Huber AM, Green K, Govaerts PJ, Fraysse B, Dowell R, Dillier N, Burke E, Beynon A, Bergeron F, Baskent D, Artieres F, Blamey PJ (2012) Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS One 7:e48739CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Long CJ, Holden TA, McClelland GH, Parkinson WS, Shelton C, Kelsall DC, Smith ZM (2014) Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:293–304CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Macherey O, van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Wouters J (2006) Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 7:253–266CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Macherey O, Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Deeks JM, Wouters J (2008) Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 9:241–251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Macherey O, Carlyon RP, Chatron J, Roman S (2017) Effect of pulse polarity on thresholds and on non-monotonic loudness growth in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 18:513–527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
McNeish D (2017) Small sample methods for multilevel modeling: a colloquial elucidation of REML and the Kenward-Roger correction. Multivar Behav Res 52:661–670CrossRef
Nadol JB (1997) Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:220–228CrossRefPubMed
Nadol JB, Young YS, Glynn RJ (1989) Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 98:411–416CrossRefPubMed
Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRef
Noble JH, Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams AJ, Dawant BM, Labadie RF (2015) Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy. Audiol Neurootol 19:400–411CrossRef
Pfingst BE, Colesa DJ, Hembrador S, Kang SY, Middlebrooks JC, Raphael Y, Su GL (2011) Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health. J Acoust Soc Am 130:3954–3968CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Rader T, Baumann U, Stöver T, Weissgerber T, Adel Y, Leinung M, Helbig S (2016) Management of cochlear implant electrode migration. Otol Neurotol 37:e341–e348CrossRefPubMed
Rattay F (1999) The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system. Neuroscience 89(2):335–346
Rattay F, Lutter P, Felix H (2001a) A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron I. Contribution of neural substructures to the generation and propagation of spikes. Hear Res 153:43–63CrossRefPubMed
Rattay F, Lutter P, Felix H (2001b) A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron II. Influence of the three-dimensional cochlear structure on neural excitability. Hear Res 153:64–79CrossRefPubMed
Resnick JM, O’Brien GE, Rubinstein JT (2018) Simulated auditory nerve axon demyelination alters sensitivity and response timing to extracellular stimulation. Hear Res 361:121–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Pfingst PE (2018) Assessing the relationship between the electrically evoked compound action potential and speech recognition abilities in bilateral cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 39:344–358CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sek A, Alcantara J, Moore BCJ, Kluk K, Wicher A (2005) Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves. Int J Audiol 44:408–420CrossRefPubMed
Skinner MW, Holden TA, Whiting BR, Voie AH, Brunsden B, Neely G, Saxon EA, Hullar TE, Finley CC (2007) In vivo estimates of the position of Advanced Bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 197:1–24
Spelman FA, Clopton BM, Pfingst BE (1982) Tissue impedance and current flow in the implanted ear. Implications for the cochlear prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 98:3–8PubMed
Teymouri J, Hullar TE, Holden TA, Chole RA (2011) Verification of computed tomographic estimates of cochlear implant array position: a micro-CT and histologic analysis. Otol Neurotol 32:980–986CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Undurraga JA, van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Wouters J (2010) Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites. Hear Res 269:146–161CrossRefPubMed
Undurraga JA, Carlyon RP, Wouters J, van Wieringen A (2013) The polarity sensitivity of the electrically stimulated human auditory nerve measured at the level of the brainstem. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 14:359–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
van Wieringen A, Macherey O, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Wouters J (2008) Alternative pulse shapes in electrical hearing. Hear Res 242:154–163CrossRefPubMed
Vanpoucke FJ, Zarowski AJ, Peeters SA (2004) Identification of the impedance model of an implanted cochlear prosthesis from intracochlear potential measurements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 51:2174–2183CrossRefPubMed
Voie AH, Burns DH, Spelman FA (1993) Orthogonal-plane fluorescence optical sectioning: three-dimensional imaging of macroscopic biological specimens. J Microsc 170:229–236CrossRefPubMed
Zhou N (2017) Deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds improves spectral ripple and speech reception thresholds in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 141:EL243–EL248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zhou N, Xu L, Pfingst BE (2012) Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users. Hear Res 284:25–32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners
Authors
Kelly N. Jahn
Julie G. Arenberg
Publication date
01-08-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 1525-3961
Electronic ISSN: 1438-7573
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-019-00718-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 4/2019 Go to the issue

Commentary

The fMRI Data of Thompson et al. (2006) Do Not Constrain How the Human Midbrain Represents Interaural Time Delay

Research Article

Exploring the Role of Medial Olivocochlear Efferents on the Detection of Amplitude Modulation for Tones Presented in Noise

Research Article

AAV-Mediated Neurotrophin Gene Therapy Promotes Improved Survival of Cochlear Spiral Ganglion Neurons in Neonatally Deafened Cats: Comparison of AAV2-hBDNF and AAV5-hGDNF

Research Article

Neural Encoding of Amplitude Modulations in the Human Efferent System

Research Article

Virtual Rhesus Labyrinth Model Predicts Responses to Electrical Stimulation Delivered by a Vestibular Prosthesis

Research Article

Investigating the Effect of Cochlear Synaptopathy on Envelope Following Responses Using a Model of the Auditory Nerve