Programming a Cochlear Implant for Tinnitus Suppression

Abstract

Background Electrical stimulation of the cochlea to treat tinnitus has been explored for decades. However, few studies have investigated the most salient programming parameters for tinnitus suppression in cochlear implant (CI) patients.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to review the available CI programming parameters for tinnitus suppression and to consider possible clinical research designs for selecting the optimal programming parameters for CI patients.

Results Across research studies, the optimal parameters vary significantly and are often based on data fromonly a fewparticipants. Electrical stimulation using lowand high rates, different electrode numbers, and low T-levels were helpful in suppressing tinnitus, although more research is needed from a greater number of CI patients. Possible designs for evaluating these parameters in a clinical setting are presented.

Conclusions Programming a CI to reduce the prominence of tinnitus is complex, and audiologists should consider adjusting CI parameters systematically for CI patients with bothersome tinnitus.

Keywords

cochlear implants - tinnitus

• References

• 1 Andersson G, Freijd A, Baguley DM, Idrizbegovic E. Tinnitus distress, anxiety, depression, and hearing problems among cochlear implant patients with tinnitus. J Am Acad Audiol 20 2009; 315-319
• 2 Arts RA, Netz T, Janssen AM, George EL, Stokroos RJ. The occurrence of tinnitus after CI surgery in patients with severe hearing loss: a retrospective study. Int J Audiol 54 2015; (12) 910-917
• 3 Balkany T, Hodges A, Menapace C, Hazard L, Driscoll C, Gantz B, Kelsall D, Luxford W, McMenomy S, Neely JG, Peters B, Pillsbury H, Roberson J, Schramm D, Telian S, Waltzman S, Westerberg B, Payne S. Nucleus freedom north American clinical trial. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136 2007; 757-762
• 4 Dauman R, Tyler RS. Tinnitus suppression in cochlear implant users. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 48 1993; 168-173
• 5 Dorman MF, Loizou PC, Kemp LL, Kirk KI. Word recognition by children listening to speech processed into a small number of channels: data from normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 21 2000; [phone]
• 6 Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Skinner MW. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard hires and hires 120 sound processing. Otol Neurotol 30 2009; [phone]
• 7 Fishman KE, Shannon RV, Slattery WH. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 1997; [phone]
• 8 Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 110 2001; [phone]
• 9 Frijns JHM, Klop WM, Bonnet RM, Briaire JJ, Briaire J. Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 123 2003; [phone]
• 10 Gomersall PA, Baguley DM, Carlyon RP. A cross-sectional questionnaire study of tinnitus awareness and impact in a population of adult cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 40 2019; 135-142
• 11 Hazell JWP, McKinney CJ, Aleksy W. Mechanisms of tinnitus in profound deafness. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1995; (Suppl. 166) 418-420
• 12 Hazell JWP, Meerton LJ, Conway MJ. 1989; Electrical tinnitus suppression (ETS) with a single channel cochlear implant. J Laryngol Otol (Suppl. 18) 39-44
• 13 Hazell JW, Wood SM, Cooper HR, Stephens SDG, Corcoran AL, Coles RRA, Baskill JL, Sheldrake JB. A clinical study of tinnitus maskers. Br J Audiol 19 1985; (02) 65-146
• 14 Ito J. Tinnitus suppression in cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117 1997; 701-703
• 15 Koch DB, Osberger MJ, Segel P, Kessler D. HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability. Audiol Neurootol 9 2004; 214-223
• 16 Kou BS, Ship DB, Nedzelski JM. Subjective benefits reported by adult nucleus 22-channel cochlear implant users. J Otolaryngol 23 1994; (01) 8-14
• 17 Kuk FK, Tyler RS, Rustad N, Harker LA, Tye-Murray N. Alternating current at the eardrum for tinnitus reduction. J Speech Hear Res 32 1989; [phone]
• 18 Liu Y, Wang H, Han DX, Li MH, Wang Y, Xiao YL. Suppression of tinnitus in Chinese patients receiving regular cochlear implant programming. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 125 2016; [phone]
• 19 Mo B, Harris S, Lindbaek M. Tinnitus in cochlear implant patients-a comparison with other hearing-impaired patients. Int J Audiol 41 2002; 527-534
• 20 Perreau A, Tyler RS, Witt SA. The effect of reducing the number of electrodes on spatial hearing tasks for bilateral cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 21 2010; [phone]
• 21 Plant KL, Whitford LA, Psarros CE, Vandali AE. Parameter selection and programming recommendations for the ACE and CIS speech-processing strategies in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int 3 2002; 104-125
• 22 Punte AK, De Ridder D, Van de Heyning P. On the necessity of full length electrical cochlear stimulation to suppress severe tinnitus in single-sided deafness. Hear Res 295 2013; 24-29
• 23 Quaranta N, Wagstaff S, Baguley DM. Tinnitus and cochlear implantation. Int J Audiol 43 2004; 245-251 , Review paper
• 24 Quaranta N, Fernandez-Vega S, D'Elia C, Filipo R, Quaranta A. The effect of unilateral multichannel cochlear implant on bilaterally perceived tinnitus. Acta Otolaryngol 128 2008; 159-163
• 25 Rubinstein JT, Tyler RS. Electrical suppression of tinnitus. In: Snow J. , ed. Tinnitus: Theory and Management. Hamilton, Canada: B.C. Decker; 326-335
• 26 Rubinstein JT, Tyler RS, Johnson A, Brown CJ. Electrical suppression of tinnitus with high-rate pulse trains. Otol Neurotol 24 2003; 478-485
• 27 Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE. Effects of electrode deactivation on speech recognition in multichannel cochlear implant recipients. Cochlear Implants Int 18 2017; [phone]
• 28 Souliere JR CR, Kileny PR, Zwolan TA, Kemink JL. Tinnitus suppression following cochlear implantation. A multifactorial investigation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 118 1992; (12) 1291-1297
• 29 Tyler RS. Advantages and disadvantages expected and reported by cochlear implant patients. Am J Otol 15 1994; 523-531
• 30 Tyler RS, Kelsay D. Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. Am J Otol 11 1990; 282-289
• 31 Tyler RS, Rubinstein J, Pan T, Chang S, Gogel S, Gehringer A, Coelho C. Electrical stimulation of the cochlea to reduce tinnitus. Semin Hear 29 2008; a [phone]
• 32 Tyler RS, Witt S, Dunn CC, Perreau A. A daily alternating method for comparing different signal-processing strategies in hearing aids and in cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 19 2008; b 443-454
• 33 Tyler RS, Keiner AJ, Walker K, Deshpande AK, Witt S, Killian M, Ji H, Patrick J, Dillier N, van Dijk P, Lai WK, Hansen MR, Gantz B. A series of case studies of tinnitus suppression with mixed background stimuli in a cochlear implant. Am J Audiol 22 2015; 398-410
• 34 Van de Heyning P, Vermeire K, Diebl M, Nopp P, Anderson I, De Ridder D. Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 117 2008; 645-652
• 35 Zeng FG, Tang Q, Dimitrijevic A, Starr A, Larky J, Blevins NH. Tinnitus suppression by low-rate electric stimulation and its electrophysiological mechanisms. Hear Res 277 2011; 61-66
• 36 Zeng FG, Djalilian H, Lin H. Tinnitus treatment with precise and optimal electric stimulation: opportunities and challenges. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 23 2015; [phone]