Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(04): 203-213
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748046
Original Article

Effect of Stimulation Rate on Cochlear Implant Recipients' Thresholds and Maximum Acceptable Loudness Levels

Margaret W. Skinner
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St . Louis, Missouri
,
Laura K. Holden
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St . Louis, Missouri
,
Timothy A. Holden
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St . Louis, Missouri
,
Marilyn E. Demorest
Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Clinically, speech processor programs are created using electrical thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels (MALs) at several different stimulation rates to determine what rate will provide cochlear implant recipients with the best speech recognition when using fast-rate speech coding strategies. This study was designed to determine the difference in thresholds and MALs (expressed in the clinical unit, Current Level [CL]) for pairs of six rates spanning those available with the Nucleus 24 device (i.e., 250 to 2400 pps/ch) using monopolar, 25 μsec/phase stimulation. Test-retest measures of threshold and MAL for each rate were obtained from seven adult Nucleus 24 recipients on each of 11 electrodes. The difference in threshold and in MAL between pairs of rates was dependent on the absolute CL. Below approximately 190 CL, thresholds and MALs decreased with increasing rate; above 210 CL, there was little change in threshold or MAL with increasing rate. Based on these findings, an approach to estimating threshold and MAL from one rate to another is suggested, pending further research.

Abbreviations: ACE = advanced combination encoder, CIS = continuous interleaved sampling, CT = computed tomography, CL = current level, FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration, MALs = maximum acceptable loudness levels, NRT = neural response telemetry, pps/ch = pulses per second per channel, SPEAK = spectral peak speech coding strategy, WinDPS = Windows programming and diagnostic system

Key Words

cochlear implant - maximum acceptable loudness level - stimulation rate - threshold


Publication History

Article published online:
07 April 2022

© 2000. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, Firszt JB, Hughes ML, Hong SH, Staller SJ. (1999). Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 20:45–59.
  • Arndt PL, Staller S, Arcarola J, Ebinger K. (1999). Within-Subject Comparison of Advanced Coding Strategies in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant. Englewood, CO: Cochlear Corporation.
  • Brown C, Hughes M, Luk Β, Abbas Ρ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. (in press). The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and the levels used to program the Nucleus CI24M speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear.
  • Carhart R, Jerger J. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord 14:330–345.
  • Chatterjee M. (1999). Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1853–1863.
  • Ketten DR, Skinner MW, Wang G, Vannier MW, Gates GA, Neely JG. (1998). In vivo measures of cochlear length and insertion depth of Nucleus cochlear implant arrays. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107 (Part 2), Suppl 175:1–16.
  • Merzenich MM, Leake-Jones P, Vivion M, White MW, Silverman M. (1978). Development of Multichannel Electrodes for an Auditory Prosthesis. 4th Quarterly Progress Report (June 1–August 31, 1978). National Institutes of Health contract no. N01–N5–7–2367.
  • Peterson G, Lehiste I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27:62–70.
  • Shannon RV. (1985). Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res 18:135–143.
  • Shepherd RK, Javel E. (1999). Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear Res 130:171–188.
  • Shepherd RK, Maffi CL, Hatsushika S, Javel E, Tong VC, Clark GM. (1990). Temporal and spatial coding in auditory prostheses. In: Rowe M, Aitkin L, eds. Information Processing in Mammalian Auditory and Tactile Systems. New York: Wiley-Liss, 281–293.
  • Skinner MW, Holden LK, Demorest ME, Holden TA. (1995). Use of test-retest measures to evaluate performance stability in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 16:187–197.
  • Skinner MW, Holden LK, Holden TA, Demorest ME. (2000). Comparison of Speech Recognition by Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant Recipients Using the ACE Speech Coding Strategy with Two Stimulation Rates. Research in progress.
  • Vandali AE, Whitford LA, Plant KL, Clark GM. (in press). Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System.
  • Wilson BS, Lawson DT, Finley CC, Wolford RD. (1995). New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. Am J Otol 16:669–675.