Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images

  • Otology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The use of image processing techniques to estimate the position of intra-cochlear electrodes has enabled the creation of personalized maps to meet the individual stimulation needs of cochlear implant (CI) recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel technique of electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images in post-lingually deafened adult CI recipients.

Methods

Based on postoperative CBCT images, the positioning of the electrodes was estimated in relation to the modiolus in 14 ears of 13 post-lingually deafened adult CI recipients. The electrodes sub-optimally positioned or involved in kinking and tip fold-over were deactivated. Speech perception scores in silence and in noise were obtained from subjects using the standard map and were followed up 4 weeks after image-based electrode deactivation reprogramming technique (IBEDRT). The participants selected their preferred map after 4 weeks of IBEDRT use.

Results

There were statistically significant improvements in the speech recognition tests in silence and noise when comparing IBEDRT performance to the standard map. All participants elected the IBEDRT as their new preferred map.

Conclusions

IBEDRT is a promising technique for fitting CI recipients and minimizing channel interaction increased by the positioning of the electrodes sub-optimally placed, thereby improving their auditory performance. We propose a novel electrode deactivation technique based on postoperative CBCT imaging, with a limited number of deactivated electrodes and a low-dosing scanning which could be applied for clinical routine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Roland Junior T (1999) A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems. Am J Otol 20:435–441

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lenarz M, Sonmez H, Joseph G, Buchner A, Lenarz T (2012) Long-term performance of cochlear implants in postlingually deafened adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck 147:112–118

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vermeire K, Nobbe A, Schleich P, Nopp P, Voormolen MH, Van de Heyning PH (2008) Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Hear Res 245:98–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson BS, Dorman MF (2008) Cochlear implants: current designs and future possibilities. J Rehabil Res Dev 45(5):695–730

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Noble JH, Labadie RF, Gifford RH, Dawant BM (2013) Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 21:820–829

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Lassig AA, Zwolan TA, Telian SA (2005) Cochlear implant failures and revision. Otol Neurotol 26:624–634

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ishiyama A, Risi F, Boyd P (2020) Potential insertion complications with cochlear implant electrodes. Cochlear Implants Int 20:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes ML, Stille LJ (2010) Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 31:679–692

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldwyn JH, Bierer SM, Bierer JA (2010) Modeling the electrodeneuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement and the partial tripolar configuration. Hear Res 268:93–104

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Long CJ, Holden TA, Mcclland GH et al (2014) Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 15:293–304

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalkman RK, Briare JJ, Dekker DMT, Frijns JHM (2014) Place pitch versus electrode location in a realistic computational model of the implanted human cochlea. Hear Res 315:10–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Devries L, Scheperle R, Bierer JA (2016) Assessing the electrodeneuron interface with the electrically evoked compound action potential, electrode position, and behavioral thresholds. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 17:237–252

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ et al (2004) Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurotol 9:203–213

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hughes ML, Stille LJ (2008) Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 29:435–452

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jones GL, Ho Won J, Drennan WR, Rubinstein JT (2013) Relationship between channel interaction and spectral-ripple discrimination in cochlear implant users a. J Acoust Soc Am 133:425–433

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR (1993) Simulation of the effects of loudness recruitment and threshold elevation on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in a background of speech. J Acoust Soc Am 94:2050–2062

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Baer T, Moore BC (1994) Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in the presence of interfering speech. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2277–2280

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zwolan TA, Collins LM, Wakefield GH (1997) Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J Acoust Soc Am 102:3673–3685

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Debruyne JA, Francart T, Janssen MLJ, Douma K, Brokx JPL (2017) Fitting prelingual deafened adult cochlear implant users based on electrode discrimination performance. Int J Audiol 56:174–185

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saleh SM, Saeed SR, Meerton L, Moore DR, Vickers DA (2013) Clinical use of electrode differentiation to enhance programming of cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 14:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vickers DA, Degun A, Canas A, Stainsby T, Vanpoucke F (2016) Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes based on pitch information for users of the ACE strategy. Adv Exp Med Biol 894:115–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhou N, Pfingst BE (2012) Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 132:994–1008

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Garadat SN, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE (2013) Using temporal modulation sensitivity to select stimulation sites for processor maps in cochlear implant listeners. Audiol Neurotol 18:247–260

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bierer JA, Litvak L (2016) Cochlear implant programming may improve speech perception: current focusing and channel deactivation. Trends hear 20:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou N (2016) Monopolar detection thresholds predict spatial selectivity of neural excitation in cochlear implants: implications for speech recognition. PLoS ONE 11(10):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  26. Runge-Samuelson C, Firszt JB, Gaggl W, Wackym PA (2009) Electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses in adults and children: effects of lateral to medial placement of the nucleus 24 contour electrode array. Otol Neurotol 30:464–470

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Noble JH, Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams AJ, Dawant BM, Labadie RF (2014) Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy. Audiol Neurootol 19(6):400–411

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Labadie RF, Noble JH, Hedley-Williams AJ et al (2015) Results of postoperative, CT-based, electrode deactivation on hearing in prelingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol 37:137–145

    Google Scholar 

  29. Noble JH, Hedley-Williams AJ, Sunderhaus L et al (2016) Initial results with image-guided cochlear implant programming in children. Otol Neurotol 37:63–69

    Google Scholar 

  30. Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE (2017) Effects of electrode deactivation on speech recognition in multichannel cochlear implant recipients. Cochlear Implants 18(6):324–334

    Google Scholar 

  31. Massuda ET, Dermacy T, Hoen M, Danieli F, Amaral SA, Gnansia D, Hyppolito MA (2019) Method to quantitatively assess electrode migration from medical images: feasibility and application in patients with straight cochlear implant arrays. Cochlear Implants Int 20(5):237–241

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zou J, Lahelma J, Koivisto J, Dhanasingh A, Jolly C, Aarnisalo A, Wolff J, Pyykko I (2015) Imaging cochlear implantation with round window insertion in human temporal bones and cochlear morphological variation using high-resolution cone beam CT. Acta Otolaryngol 135:466–472

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Marozeau J, Ardoint M, Gnansia D, Lazard D (2018) Acoustic match to electric pulse trains in single-sided deafness cochlear implant recipients. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on auditory and audiological research 6: 239-246

  34. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J (2000) The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 21(2):151–163

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Kelsay DM, Teagle HF, Lowder MW (2001) A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 22(6):471–486

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhao Y, Dawant BM, Labadie RF, Noble JH (2014) Automatic localization of cochlear implant electrodes in CT. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 17:331–338

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhao Y, Chakravorti S, Labadie RF, Dawant BM, Noble JH (2019) Automatic graph-based method for localization of cochlear implant electrode arrays in clinical CT with subvoxel accuracy. Med Image Anal 52:1–12

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271

    Google Scholar 

  39. Demarcy T, Vandersteen C, Guevara N, Raffaelli C, Gnansia D, Ayache N, Delingette H (2017) Automated analysis of human cochlea shape variability from segmented μ CT images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 59:1–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Costa MJ, Santos SN, Lessa AH, Mezzomo CL et al (2015) Proposal for implementing the Sentence Recognition Index in individuals with hearing disorders. CoDAS 27(2):148–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Costa MJ, Iório MCM, Albernaz PLM (2000) Desenvolvimento de um teste para avaliar a habilidade de reconhecer a fala no silêncio e no ruído. Pró-fono 12(2):9–16

    Google Scholar 

  42. Santos SN, Daniel RC, Costa MJ (2009) Estudo da equivalência entre as listas de sentenças em Português. Revista CEFAC 11(4):673–680

    Google Scholar 

  43. Freitas CD, Lopes LFD, Costa MJ (2005) Reliability of the recognition thresholds of the sentence in the quiet and the noise. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 71(5):624–630

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sipari S, Iso-Mustajärvi M, Matikka H et al (2018) Cochlear implantation with a novel long straight electrode: the insertion results evaluated by imaging and histology in human temporal bones. Otol Neurotol 39:784–793

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zuniga MG, Rivas A, Hedley-Williams A, Gifford RH, Dwyer R, Dawant BM, Sunderhaus LW, Hovis KL, Wanna GB, Noble ZH, Labadie RF (2016) Tip fold-over in cochlear implantation: case series. Otol Neurotol 38:199–2016

    Google Scholar 

  46. De Seta D, Nguyen Y, Bonnard D, Ferrary E, Godey B, Bakhos D, Mondain M, Deguine O, Sterkers O, Bernardeschi D, Mosnier I (2016) The role of electrode placement in bilateral simultaneously cochlear—implanted adult patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 155(3):485–493

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gifford RH, Hedley-Williams A, Spahr AJ (2014) Clinical assessment of spectral modulation detection for cochlear implant recipients: a non-language based measure of performance outcomes. Int J Audiol 53:159–164

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr Michel Hoen for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate Program at the Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Av Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

    Fabiana Danieli, Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral & Miguel Angelo Hyppolito

  2. Clinical Department, Oticon Medical, São Paulo, Brazil

    Fabiana Danieli

  3. Department of Scientific and Clinical Research, Oticon Medical, Vallauris, France

    Thomas Dermacy & Dan Gnansia

  4. Department of Health Sciences, RCS, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis

  5. Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil

    Miguel Angelo Hyppolito

Authors
  1. Fabiana Danieli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Dermacy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dan Gnansia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Miguel Angelo Hyppolito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study. FD designed and performed the study. TD reviewed the data and performed the analysis of the manuscript. MSAA helped in the data collection and reviewed the manuscript. ACMBR wrote parts of the manuscript. DG reviewed the data and supported the design of the study. MAH designed and wrote parts of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabiana Danieli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danieli, F., Dermacy, T., do Amaral, M.S.A. et al. Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278, 977–986 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06156-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06156-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation