To improve the estimation of the perceived pitch in a single-sided deaf cochlear implant (CI) listener by using accurate 3-dimensional (3D) image analysis of the cochlear electrode positions together with the predicted tonotopical function for humans.
Methods:
An SSD CI user underwent a Cone-Beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. Electrode contacts were marked in 3D space in relation to the nearest point on the cochlear lateral wall. Distance to the base of the lateral wall was calculated and plotted against the place-pitch function for humans. An adaptive procedure was used to elicit the perceived pitch of electrically evoked stimulation by matching it with a contralateral acoustic pitch.
Results:
The electrically evoked pitch percept matched well with the calculated frequency. The median mismatch in octaves was 0.12 for our method in comparison to 0.69 using the conventional Stenvers view.
Conclusion:
A method of improved image analysis is described that can be used to predict the pitch percept on corresponding cochlear electrode positions. This method shows the potential of 3D imaging in CI fitting optimization.
OxenhamAJBernsteinJGWPenagosH.Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(5):1421-1425.
2.
GreenwoodDD.A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;87(6):2592-2605.
3.
BoëxCBaudLCosendaiGSigristAKósM-IPelizzoneM.Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006;7(2):110-124.
4.
DormanMFSpahrTGiffordR. An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):234-240.
SchatzerRVermeireKVisserDKrenmayrA.Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch. Hear Res. 2014;309:26-35.
7.
KalkmanRKBriaireJJDekkerDMTFrijnsJHM. Place pitch versus electrode location in a realistic computational model of the implanted human cochlea. Hear Res. 2014;315:10-24.
8.
CarlyonRPDeeksJMMcKayCM.The upper limit of temporal pitch for cochlear-implant listeners: stimulus duration, conditioner pulses, and the number of electrodes stimulated. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(3):1469-1478.
9.
CarlyonRPLynchCDeeksJM.Effect of stimulus level and place of stimulation on temporal pitch perception by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(5):2997-3008.
10.
GreenTFaulknerARosenS.Frequency selectivity of contralateral residual acoustic hearing in bimodal cochlear implant users, and limitations on the ability to match the pitch of electric and acoustic stimuli. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(5):389-398.
11.
ReissLAItoRAEgglestonJL. Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience. Ear Hear. 2015;36(2):e23-e34.
12.
VermeireKSchatzerRPuntea K. A frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time [published online April1, 2015] Hear Res. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2015.03.011
13.
StakhovskayaOSridharDBonhamBHLeakePA.Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2007;8(2):220-233.
14.
VermeireKNobbeASchleichPNoppPVoormolenMHVan de HeyningPH.Neural tonotopy in cochlear implants: an evaluation in unilateral cochlear implant patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Hear Res. 2008;245(1-2):98-106.
15.
FrijnsJHBriaireJJGroteJJ.The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22(3):340-349.
16.
XuJXuSCohenLClarkG.Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2000;21(1):49-56.
17.
ToddNWBallTI.Interobserver agreement of coiling of Med-El cochlear implant: plain x-ray studies. Otol Neurotol. 2004;25(3):271-274.
18.
ArtsRGeorgeEGriessnerAZierhoferCStokroosR.Tinnitus supression by intracochlear electrical stimulation in single sided deafness—a prospective clinical trial: part I. Audiol Neurotol. 2015;20:294-313.
19.
PieperSLorensenBSchroederWKikinisR. The NA-MIC Kit: ITK, VTK, pipelines, grids and 3D slicer as an open platform for the medical image computing community. Biomed Imaging Nano to Macro, 2006. 3rd IEEE Int. Symp. 2006:698-701.
20.
AlexiadesGDhanasinghAJollyC.Method to estimate the complete and two-turn cochlear duct length. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(5):904-907.
21.
BredbergG.Cellular pattern and nerve supply of the human organ of Corti. Acta Otolaryngol. 1968;(suppl 236):1-135.
22.
KongYCarlyonRP.Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(5):3114-3123.
23.
LeekMR.Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept Psychophys. 2001;63(8):1279-1292.
24.
CarlyonRPMachereyOFrijnsJHM. Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2010;11(4):625-640.
25.
NobleJGiffordRHedley-WilliamsADawantBLabadieR.Clinical evaluation of an image-guided cochlear implant programming strategy. Audiol Neurotol. 2014;19:400-411.
26.
AliHNobleJHGiffordRH. Image-guided customization of frequency-place mapping in cochlear implants. IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). 2015:5843-5847.
27.
LitovskyR.Development of the auditory system. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;129:55-72.
28.
ZhouNXuLLeeC-Y.The effects of frequency-place shift on consonant confusion in cochlear implant simulations. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):401-409.
29.
SicilianoCMFaulknerARosenSMairK.Resistance to learning binaurally mismatched frequency-to-place maps: implications for bilateral stimulation with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;127(3):1645-1660.
30.
PeretzIAyotteJZatorreRJ. Congenital amusia: a disorder of fine-grained pitch discrimination. Neuron. 2002;33(2):185-191.
31.
GoupellMJStoelbCKanALitovskyRY.Effect of mismatched place-of-stimulation on the salience of binaural cues in conditions that simulate bilateral cochlear-implant listening. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;133(4):2272-2287.
32.
FitzgeraldMBSagiEMorbiwalaTATanC-TSvirskyMA.Feasibility of real-time selection of frequency tables in an acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant. Ear Hear. 2013;34(6):763-772.
33.
TurnerC.Integration of acoustic and electrical hearing. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008;45(5):769-778.
ReissLATurnerCWKarstenSGantzBJ.Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience. 2014;256:43-52.
36.
LandsbergerDMSvrakicMRolandJTSvirskyM.The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2015;36(5):e207-e213.
37.
FearnRCartelPWolfeJ.The perception of pitch by users of cochlear implants: possible significance for rate and place theories of pitch. Acoust Aust. 1999;27(2):41-43.
