Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations
- PMID: 18595189
- DOI: 10.1097/aud.0b013e3181645336
Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the effects of Monopole (Mono), Tripole (Tri), and "Virtual channel" (Vchan) electrode configurations on spectral resolution and speech perception in a crossover design.
Design: Nine experienced adults who received an Advanced Bionics CII/90K cochlear implant participated in a crossover design using three experimental strategies for 2 wk each. Three strategies were compared: (1) Mono; (2) Tri with current partly returning to adjacent electrodes and partly (25 or 75%) to the extracochlear reference; and (3) a monopolar "Vchan" strategy creating seven intermediate channels between two contacts. Each strategy was a variant of the standard "HiRes" processing strategy using 14 channels and 1105 pulses/sec/ channel, and a pulse duration of 32 microsec/phase. Spectral resolution was measured using broadband noise with a sinusoidally rippled spectral envelope with peaks evenly spaced on a logarithmic frequency scale. Speech perception was measured for monosyllables in quiet and in steady-state and fluctuating noises. Subjective comments on music experience and preferences in everyday use were assessed through questionnaires.
Results: Thresholds and most comfortable levels with Mono and Vchan were both significantly lower than levels with Tri. Spectral resolution was significantly higher with Tri than with Mono; spectral resolution with Vchan did not differ significantly from the other configurations. Moderate but significant correlations between word recognition and spectral resolution were found in speech in quiet and fluctuating noise. For speech in quiet, word recognition was best with Mono and worst with Vchan; Tri did not significantly differ from the other configurations. Pooled across the noise conditions, word recognition was best with Tri and worst with Vchan (Mono did not significantly differ from the other configurations). These differences were small and insufficient to result in a clear increase in performance across subjects if the result from the best configuration per subject was compared with the result from Mono. Across all subjects, music appreciation and satisfaction in everyday use did not clearly differ between configurations.
Conclusions: (1) Although spectral resolution was improved with the tripolar configuration, differences in speech performance were too small in this limited group of subjects to justify clinical introduction. (2) Overall spectral resolution remained extremely poor compared with normal hearing; it remains to be seen whether further manipulations of the electrical field will be more effective.
Similar articles
-
Speech perception with mono- and quadrupolar electrode configurations: a crossover study.Otol Neurotol. 2005 Sep;26(5):957-64. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000185060.74339.9d. Otol Neurotol. 2005. PMID: 16151343
-
Using current steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90K users.Ear Hear. 2007 Apr;28(2 Suppl):38S-41S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31803150de. Ear Hear. 2007. PMID: 17496643 Clinical Trial.
-
Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.Ear Hear. 2011 Jul-Aug;32(4):436-44. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ff33ab. Ear Hear. 2011. PMID: 21178633 Free PMC article.
-
Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.Ear Hear. 2010 Apr;31(2):247-58. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c7daf4. Ear Hear. 2010. PMID: 20090533 Free PMC article.
-
Parameter selection to optimize speech recognition with the Nucleus implant.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Sep;117(3 Pt 1):188-95. doi: 10.1016/s0194-5998(97)70173-6. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997. PMID: 9334764 Review.
Cited by
-
Combining current focusing and steering in a cochlear implant processing strategy.Int J Audiol. 2021 Mar;60(3):232-237. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2020.1822551. Epub 2020 Sep 23. Int J Audiol. 2021. PMID: 32967485 Free PMC article.
-
Longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.Int J Audiol. 2019 Sep;58(9):587-597. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1601779. Epub 2019 Apr 23. Int J Audiol. 2019. PMID: 31012771 Free PMC article.
-
Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518813811. doi: 10.1177/2331216518813811. Trends Hear. 2018. PMID: 30488764 Free PMC article.
-
Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.Hear Res. 2009 Aug;254(1-2):34-41. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.04.007. Epub 2009 Apr 19. Hear Res. 2009. PMID: 19383534 Free PMC article.
-
A deep learning framework for understanding cochlear implants.bioRxiv [Preprint]. 2025 Jul 21:2025.07.16.665227. doi: 10.1101/2025.07.16.665227. bioRxiv. 2025. PMID: 40777303 Free PMC article. Preprint.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical