J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28(03): 187-199
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15063
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing

Chin-Tuan Tan
*   Department of Otolaryngology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY
,
Brett Martin
†   Speech and Hearing Sciences, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY
,
Mario A. Svirsky
*   Department of Otolaryngology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 June 2020 (online)

Abstract

Background:

Cochlear implants (CIs) successfully restore hearing in postlingually deaf adults, but in doing so impose a frequency-position function in the cochlea that may differ from the physiological one.

Purpose:

The CI-imposed frequency-position function is determined by the frequency allocation table programmed into the listener's speech processor and by the location of the electrode array along the cochlea. To what extent can postlingually deaf CI users successfully adapt to the difference between physiological and CI-imposed frequency-position functions?

Research Design:

We attempt to answer the question by combining behavioral measures of electroacoustic pitch matching (PM) and measures of electrode location within the cochlea.

Study Sample:

The participants in this study were 16 adult CI users with residual hearing who could match the pitch of acoustic pure tones presented to their unimplanted ears to the pitch resulting from stimulation of different CI electrodes.

Data Collection and Analysis:

We obtained data for four to eight apical electrodes from 16 participants with CIs (most of whom were long-term users), and estimated electrode insertion angle for 12 of these participants. PM functions in this group were compared with the two frequency-position functions discussed above.

Results:

Taken together, the findings were consistent with the possibility that adaptation to the frequency-position function imposed by CIs does happen, but it is not always complete.

Conclusions:

Some electrodes continue to be perceived as higher pitched than the acoustic frequencies with which they are associated despite years of listening experience after cochlear implantation.

Author C.T. was supported by NIH/NIDCD grant number 1K25DC010834-01; author M.S. was supported by NIH/NIDCD grant numbers R01-DC03937 and R01-DC011329; author B.M. was supported by a PSC-CUNY grant. This research was also supported by a research contract from Cochlear Americas (P.I.: J. Thomas Roland Jr.).


 
  • REFERENCES

  • Boëx C, Baud L, Cosendai G, Sigrist A, Kós MI, Pelizzone M. 2006; Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 7 (02) 110-124
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. 1986; The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7 (04) 257-265
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. 1990; Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 11 (01) 40-49
  • Carlyon RP, Macherey O, Frijns JHM, Axon PR, Kalkman RK, Boyle P, Baguley DM, Briggs J, Deeks JM, Briaire JJ, Barreau X, Dauman R.. 2010; Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 11 (04) 625-640
  • Cohen LT, Xu J, Xu SA, Clark GM. 1996; Improved and simplified methods for specifying positions of the electrode bands of a cochlear implant array. Am J Otol 17 (06) 859-865
  • Dorman MF, Spahr T, Gifford R, Loiselle L, McKarns S, Holden T, Skinner M, Finley C.. 2007; An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8 (02) 234-240
  • Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Jackson M, Shapiro WH, Roland Jr JT, Waltzman SB, Svirsky MA.. 2008; Reimplantation of hybrid cochlear implant users with a full-length electrode after loss of residual hearing. Otol Neurotol 29 (02) 168-173
  • Francart T, Brokx J, Wouters J.. 2008; Sensitivity to interaural level difference and loudness growth with bilateral bimodal stimulation. Audiol Neurotol 13: 309-319
  • Green T, Faulkner A, Rosen S. 2012; 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 51 (05) 389-398
  • Greenwood DD. 1990; A cochlear frequency-position function for several species—29 years later. J Acoust Soc Am 87 (06) 2592-2605
  • Harnsberger JD, Svirsky MA, Kaiser AR, Pisoni DB, Wright R, Meyer T A. 2001; Perceptual “vowel spaces” of cochlear implant users: implications for the study of auditory adaptation to spectral shift. J Acoust Soc Am 109 (5 Pt 1) 2135-2145
  • Landsberger DM, Svrakic M, Roland Jr JT, Svirsky M. 2015; The relationship between insertion angles, default frequency allocations, and spiral ganglion place pitch in cochlear implants. Ear Hear 36 (05) e207-e213
  • Marsh MA, Xu J, Blamey PJ, Whitford LA, Xu SA, Silverman JM, Clark GM.. 1993; Radiologic evaluation of multichannel intracochlear implant insertion depth. Am J Otol 14 (04) 386-391
  • McDermott H, Sucher C, Simpson A. 2009; Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons. Audiol Neurootol 14 (1 Suppl) 2-7
  • Reiss LA, Gantz BJ, Turner CW. 2008; Cochlear implant speech processor frequency allocations may influence pitch perception. Otol Neurotol 29 (02) 160-167
  • Reiss LA, Ito RA, Eggleston JL, Liao S, Becker JJ, Lakin CE, Warren FM, McMenomey SO.. 2015; Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience. Ear Hear 36 (02) e23-e34
  • Reiss LAJ, Turner CW, Erenberg SR, Gantz BJ. 2007; Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8 (02) 241-257
  • Reiss LA, Turner CW, Karsten SA, Gantz BJ. 2014; Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation. Neuroscience 256: 43-52
  • Schatzer R, Vermeire K, Visser D, Krenmayr A, Kals M, Voormolen M, Van de Heyning P, Zierhofer C.. 2014; Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch. Hear Res 309: 26-35
  • Stakhovskaya O, Sridhar D, Bonham BH, Leake PA. 2007; Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8 (02) 220-233
  • Svirsky MA, Fitzgerald MB, Neuman A, Sagi E, Tan CT, Ketten D, Martin B.. 2012; Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (06) 422-437
  • Svirsky MA, Fitzgerald MB, Sagi E, Glassman EK. 2015; Bilateral cochlear implants with large asymmetries in electrode insertion depth: implications for the study of auditory plasticity. Acta Otolaryngol 135 (04) 354-363
  • Svirsky MA, Silveira A, Neuburger H, Teoh S-W, Suárez H. 2004; Long-term auditory adaptation to a modified peripheral frequency map. Acta Otolaryngol 124 (04) 381-386
  • Svirsky MA, Silveira A, Suarez H, Neuburger H, Lai TT, Simmons PM. 2001; Auditory learning and adaptation after cochlear implantation: a preliminary study of discrimination and labeling of vowel sounds by cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol 121 (02) 262-265
  • Svrakic M, Friedmann DR, Berman PM, Davis AJ, Roland Jr JT, Svirsky MA. 2015; Measurement of cochlear implant electrode position from intraoperative post-insertion skull radiographs: a validation study. Otol Neurotol 36 (09) 1486-1491
  • Tan C-T, Guo B, Martin BA, Svirsky MA. 2012; Behavioral and physiological measure for pitch matching between electrical and acoustical stimulation in cochlear implant patients. Proc Mtgs Acoust 15: 050003
  • Toner J, McAnallen C, Proops D. et al. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group 2004; Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults II: cost-effectiveness analysis. Ear Hear 25 (04) 336-360
  • Xu J, Xu SA, Cohen LT, Clark GM. 2000; Cochlear view: postoperative radiography for cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 21 (01) 49-56
  • Vermeire K, Landsberger DM, Schleich P, Van de Heyning PH. 2013; Multidimensional scaling between acoustic and electric stimuli in cochlear implant users with contralateral hearing. Hear Res 306: 29-36
  • Vermeire K, Landsberger DM, Van de Heyning PH, Voormolen M, Kleine Punte A, Schatzer R, Zierhofer C.. 2015; Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: change over time. Hear Res 326: 8-14
  • 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 1–2 98-106