Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing

In cochlear implants (CIs), phantom stimulation can be used to extend the pitch range toward apical regions of the cochlea. Phantom stimulation consists of partial bipolar stimulation, in which current is distributed across two intracochlear electrodes and one extracochlear electrode as defined by the compensation coefficient σ. The aim of this study was, (1) to evaluate the benefit of conveying low-frequency information through phantom stimulation for cochlear implant (CI) subjects with low-frequency residual hearing using electric stimulation alone, (2) to compare the speech reception thresholds obtained from electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) and electric stimulation in combination with phantom stimulation (EPS), and (3) to investigate the effect of spectrally overlapped bandwidth of speech conveyed via simultaneous acoustic and phantom stimulation on speech reception thresholds. DESIGN: Fourteen CI users with ipsilateral residual hearing participated in a repeated-measures design. Phantom stimulation was used to extend the frequency bandwidth of electric stimulation of EAS users towards lower frequencies without changing their accustomed electrode-frequency allocation. Three phantom stimulation configurations with different σ’s were tested causing different degrees of electric field shaping towards apical regions of the cochlea that may affect the place of stimulation. A baseline configuration using a moderate value of σ ([Image: see text]) for all subjects, a configuration that was equivalent to monopolar stimulation by setting σ to 0 ([Image: see text]) and a configuration that used the largest value of σ for each individual subject ([Image: see text]). Speech reception thresholds were measured for electric stimulation alone, EAS and EPS. Additionally, acoustic stimulation and phantom stimulation were presented simultaneously (EAS+PS) to investigate their mutual interaction. Besides the spectral overlap, the electrode insertion depth obtained from cone-beam computed-tomography scans was determined to assess the impact of spatial overlap between electric and acoustic stimulation on speech reception. RESULTS: Speech perception significantly improved by providing additional acoustic or phantom stimulation to electric stimulation. There was no significant difference between EAS and EPS. However, two of the tested subjects were able to perform the speech perception test using EAS but not using EPS. In comparison to the subject’s familiar EAS listening mode, the speech perception deteriorated when acoustic stimulation and phantom stimulation conveyed spectrally overlapped information simultaneously and this deterioration increased with larger spectral overlap CONCLUSIONS: (1) CI users with low-frequency acoustic residual hearing benefit from low-frequency information conveyed acoustically through combined EAS. (2) Improved speech reception thresholds through low-frequency information conveyed via phantom stimulation were observed for EAS subjects when acoustic stimulation was not used. (3) Speech perception was negatively affected by combining acoustic and phantom stimulation when both stimulation modalities overlapped spectrally in comparison to the familiar EAS.