Electric-acoustic Stimulation Research Articles

Differences in neural encoding of speech in noise between cochlear implant users with and without preserved acoustic hearing

Cochlear implants (CIs) have evolved to combine residual acoustic hearing with electric hearing. It has been expected that CI users with residual acoustic hearing experience better speech-in-noise perception than CI-only listeners because preserved acoustic cues aid unmasking speech from background noise. This study sought neural substrate of better speech unmasking in CI users with preserved acoustic hearing compared to those with lower degree of acoustic hearing. Cortical evoked responses to speech in multi-talker babble noise were compared between 29 Hybrid (i.e., electric acoustic stimulation or EAS) and 29 electric-only CI users. The amplitude ratio of evoked responses to speech and noise, or internal SNR, was significantly larger in the CI users with EAS. This result indicates that CI users with better residual acoustic hearing exhibit enhanced unmasking of speech from background noise.

A Computational Model of a Single Auditory Nerve Fiber for Electric-Acoustic Stimulation

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients with preserved acoustic low-frequency hearing in the implanted ear are a growing group among traditional CI users who benefit from hybrid electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). However, combined ipsilateral electric and acoustic stimulation also introduces interactions between the two modalities that can affect the performance of EAS users. A computational model of a single auditory nerve fiber that is excited by EAS was developed to study the interaction between electric and acoustic stimulation. Two existing models of sole electric or acoustic stimulation were coupled to simulate responses to combined EAS. Different methods of combining both models were implemented. In the coupled model variant, the refractoriness of the simulated fiber leads to suppressive interaction between electrically evoked and acoustically evoked spikes as well as spontaneous activity. The second model variant is an uncoupled EAS model without electric-acoustic interaction. By comparing predictions between the coupled and the noninteracting EAS model, it was possible to infer electric-acoustic interaction at the level of the auditory nerve. The EAS model was used to simulate fiber populations with realistic inter-unit variability, where each unit was represented by the single-fiber model. Predicted thresholds and dynamic ranges, spike rates, latencies, jitter, and vector strengths were compared to empirical data. The presented EAS model provides a framework for future studies of peripheral electric-acoustic interaction.

The Effect of Pluronic-Coated Gold Nanoparticles in Hearing Preservation Following Cochlear Implantation-Pilot Study.

Introduction: During cochlear implantation, electrode insertion can cause cochlear damage, inflammation, and apoptosis, which can affect the residual hearing. Nanoparticles are increasingly studied as a way to increase the availability of inner ear protective factors. We studied the effect on rats of Pluronic-coated gold nanoparticles (Plu-AuNPs) containing dexamethasone, which were applied locally in the rat’s middle ear following the implant procedure. Methods: Seven rats were used in the study. The right ear served as a model for the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. Following the intracochlear dummy electrode insertion through the round window, Dex-Plu-AuNPs were placed in the round window niche. In the right ear, following the same insertion procedure, free dexamethasone (Dex) was placed in the same manner. Auditory brainstem response thresholds (click stimulus, pure tones at 8 kHz, 16 kHz, 24 kHz, and 32 kHz) were measured before and one week after the procedure. A two-tailed T-test was used for the variables. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. Results: In the Dex-Plu-AuNP group, the threshold shift was less than that in the free dexamethasone group, but no statistical significance was noted between the groups. When compared individually, only the 8 kHz frequency showed statistically significant, better results after one week, in favor of the Dex-Plu-AuNP group. The mean postoperative 8 kHz threshold in the Dex-Plu-AuNPs was significantly lower than that of the control group (p = 0.048, t-test). For the other frequencies, statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the mean threshold shifts of the two cohorts. Conclusions: The local application of Plu-AuNPs containing dexamethasone following cochlear implantation may better protect the residual hearing than dexamethasone alone, but a larger sample size is needed to reach a possible statistical significance. Dex-Plu-AuNPs do not seem to cause ototoxicity and may be used as a carrier for other agents. In a clinical setting, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may have the effect of protecting lower frequencies in patients with partial deafness who are candidates for electric acoustic stimulation (EAS). If we consider this tendency, Dex-Plu-AuNPs may also be beneficial for patients with Ménière’s disease.

Preliminary study to determine an optimal mode for favorable residual hearing at low frequencies: Full electrical stimulation, electric acoustic stimulation, and electrical complement.

ObjectiveIn this prospective study, each subject experienced three modes electric acoustic stimulation (EAS), full electrical stimulation (FES), and electrical complement (EC), and the performance of each mode and subject preference were evaluated.MethodsEight ears (seven patients) with successfully preserved residual hearing after cochlear implantation (CI) were included. EAS, FES, and EC programs were set up on each patient's device, and each mode was used for at least 1 h per day for a month. The Speech Intelligibility test, the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale, and the Hearing in Noise test (HINT) results in each stimulation mode.ResultsThe mean monosyllabic word score (EAS: 90.3 ± 4.0; FES: 81.2 ± 16.1) and the mean sentence score (EAS: 98.3 ± 1.7; FES: 95.0 ± 3.0) were significantly higher in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. The mean bisyllabic word score (EAS: 95.6 ± 5.6; EC: 90.1 ± 5.6) was higher in the EAS mode than in the EC mode. In HINT, the signal‐to‐noise ratios under the noise front (EAS: 4.7 ± 2.5; FES: 7.9 ± 4.4) and noise composite conditions (EAS: 4.2 ± 2.7; FES: 6.6 ± 4.0) were significantly smaller in the EAS mode than in the FES mode. After trials of the three modes, five subjects preferred EAS, one preferred EC, and two preferred FES.ConclusionAmong the three stimulation modes, EAS produced slightly better results, and subjects generally preferred EAS (five of seven patients, 71.4%). The use of hearing aids before CI was considered an important factor in mode preference. FES may be preferred when CI was performed at a young age and subjects had little experience with hearing aids. However, adults may prefer EC over EAS if there was little or no hearing‐aid use before CI.

Forward Electric Stimulation-Induced Interference in Intracochlear Electrocochleography of Acoustic Stimulation in the Cochlea of Guinea Pigs.

Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) uses amplified sound by a hearing aid to stimulate an apical low-frequency region of the cochlea and electrical current from a cochlear implant (CI) to stimulate the basal high-frequency region. EAS recipients had significantly improved speech perception, music appreciation, and hearing function in noise compared to those relying on CI electrical stimulation (ES) alone. However, the interaction between basal ES and apical acoustic stimulation (AS) in the cochlea potentially affects EAS advantages. To investigate ES-AS interaction, we designed a system that recorded the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and the auditory evoked potential (AEP). We used an intracochlear electrode array to deliver ES at the basal cochlea and detect intracochlear electrocochleography (iECochG) generated from apical AS. Within iECochG, 3 or 6 dB (double or quadruple intensity of ECAP threshold) electric stimulation, 1 ms-forward ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS compared to 0 dB ES. Notably, 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES significantly increased CAP amplitudes of 4 kHz/20 dB AS, while 3 or 5 ms-forward ES did not change the CAP amplitudes. The elevation in CAP amplitude of 40 dB/4 kHz AS induced by 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES was significantly lower than that in 20 dB/4 kHz AS. With 1 ms-forward 3 dB ES, AS frequency and stimulating electrode location have no significant impact on relative CAP amplitudes of 20 dB AS. These results suggest that the basal forward ES and the following apical AS could produce a cumulative effect on the auditory nerve response.

Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Cochlear implant (CI) recipients demonstrate variable speech recognition when listening with a CI-alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device, which may be due in part to electric frequency-to-place mismatches created by the default mapping procedures. Performance may be improved if the filter frequencies are aligned with the cochlear place frequencies, known as place-based mapping. Performance with default maps versus an experimental place-based map was compared for participants with normal hearing when listening to CI-alone or EAS simulations to observe potential outcomes prior to initiating an investigation with CI recipients. A noise vocoder simulated CI-alone and EAS devices, mapped with default or place-based procedures. The simulations were based on an actual 24-mm electrode array recipient, whose insertion angles for each electrode contact were used to estimate the respective cochlear place frequency. The default maps used the filter frequencies assigned by the clinical software. The filter frequencies for the place-based maps aligned with the cochlear place frequencies for individual contacts in the low- to mid-frequency cochlear region. For the EAS simulations, low-frequency acoustic information was filtered to simulate aided low-frequency audibility. Performance was evaluated for the AzBio sentences presented in a 10-talker masker at +5 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), +10 dB SNR, and asymptote. Performance was better with the place-based maps as compared with the default maps for both CI-alone and EAS simulations. For instance, median performance at +10 dB SNR for the CI-alone simulation was 57% correct for the place-based map and 20% for the default map. For the EAS simulation, those values were 59% and 37% correct. Adding acoustic low-frequency information resulted in a similar benefit for both maps. Reducing frequency-to-place mismatches, such as with the experimental place-based mapping procedure, produces a greater benefit in speech recognition than maximizing bandwidth for CI-alone and EAS simulations. Ongoing work is evaluating the initial and long-term performance benefits in CI-alone and EAS users. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529053.

Neural correlates of speech in noise perception differences between combined electric-acoustic stimulation and standard cochlear implants

Cochlear implants have evolved to utilize residual acoustic hearing that combines to electric stimulation, known as electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). However, there are mixed expectations about the benefits of EAS. A positive perspective expects that contributions from residual hearing provide better access to acoustic cues that is helpful for speech-in-noise perception. An opposing view concerns potentially poorer spectral resolution of EAS electrodes’ stimulation as those electrodes are often inserted close to lateral wall, which may cause poorer speech-in-noise perception. This study aimed to directly compare neural processes of speech-in-noise perception between EAS and standard CI users to provide an answer to the above alternative expectations. We used 64-channel EEG to measure cortical evoked responses to (1) background noise and (2) target word while listeners perform a word-in-noise task. Then, we compared the amplitude ratio of evoked responses to the target word and background noise, referred to as “internal SNR,” which reflects how well target sound is unmasked from the mixture of speech and noise. Based on the comparison of 55 EAS and 22 standard CI users, internal SNR was significantly larger in EAS CI users. This result indicates that EAS provides enhanced neural processes for speech unmasking.

Molecular aetiology of ski-slope hearing loss and audiological course of cochlear implantees.

A challenge for patients with ski-slope hearing loss is that hearing aids do not adequately amplify the mid-to-high frequencies necessary for speech perception and conversely, cochlear implant (CI) may damage low-frequency hearing. We aimed to describe the clinical profile of patients with ski-slope hearing loss, with a special focus on aetiology of such hearing loss and audiological course of low-frequency hearing after CI. We recruited hearing-impaired patients who visited a tertiary referral centre and met the criteria for ski-slope hearing loss patients from 2015 to 2021. Genetic testing was performed in all ski-slope hearing loss patients unless refused. Baseline audiograms of patients who continued to use hearing aids or who finally underwent CIs were reviewed. As for CI patients, outcome and hearing preservation rate were rigorously analysed. Of 46 recruited patients with ski-slope hearing loss, 45 agreed to undergo genetic testing and causative variants were identified in 17 (37.8%) patients. The TMC1, MYO7A, and TMPRSS3 variants were the most common, while LRTOMT was newly identified as a causative gene. Twenty-five patients eventually received CI, while 13 continued to wear the hearing aid and 8 patients did not ever try hearing aids. CI in ski-slope hearing loss led to immediate and sufficient improvement of sentence recognition by as early as 3months, however, the duration of hearing loss was inversely correlated with the sentence recognition score. The average hearing preservation rate (using the HEARRING classification) after CI was 53.0% (SD 30.0) and 45.6% (SD 31.1) at 1year. Seventy-nine percent of implantees maintained functional low-frequency hearing (better than 85dB at 250 and 500Hz) eligible for electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS). A trend was found that patients with hair cell stereocilia-associated genetic variants may have a slightly better preservation, albeit with no statistical significance. Detection rate of a molecular genetic aetiology of ski-slope hearing loss appears to be lower than other type of hearing loss reported in the literature. Especially with short hearing loss duration, CI in ski-slope hearing loss leads to immediate and sufficient speech improvement, while preserving functional low-frequency hearing eligible for EAS as many as in 79%. A certain genetic aetiology might be associated with a trend towards better low-frequency hearing preservation.

Access and Polarization Electrode Impedance Changes in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Delayed Loss of Acoustic Hearing.

Acoustic hearing can be preserved after cochlear implant (CI) surgery, allowing for combined electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) and superior speech understanding compared to electric-only hearing. Among patients who initially retain useful acoustic hearing, 30-40 % experience a delayed hearing loss that occurs 3 or more months after CI activation. Increases in electrode impedances have been associated with delayed loss of residual acoustic hearing, suggesting a possible role of intracochlear inflammation/fibrosis as reported by Scheperle et al. (Hear Res350:45-57, 2017) and Shaul et al. (Otol Neurotol40(5):e518-e526, 2019). These studies measured only total impedance. Total impedance consists of a composite of access resistance, which reflects resistance of the intracochlear environment, and polarization impedance, which reflects resistive and capacitive properties of the electrode-electrolyte interface as described by Dymond (IEEE Trans Biomed Eng23(4):274-280, 1976) and Tykocinski et al. (Otol Neurotol26(5):948-956, 2005). To explore the role of access and polarization impedance components in loss of residual acoustic hearing, these measures were collected from Nucleus EAS CI users with stable acoustic hearing and subsequent precipitous loss of hearing. For the hearing loss group, total impedance and access resistance increased over time while polarization impedance remained stable. For the stable hearing group, total impedance and access resistance were stable while polarization impedance declined. Increased access resistance rather than polarization impedance appears to drive the increase in total impedances seen with loss of hearing. Moreover, access resistance has been correlated with intracochlear fibrosis/inflammation in animal studies as observed by Xu et al. (Hear Res105(1-2):1-29, 1997) and Tykocinski et al. (Hear Res159(1-2):53-68, 2001). These findings thus support intracochlear inflammation as one contributor to loss of acoustic hearing in our EAS CI population.

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

Objective: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 () for all subjects, a configuration that was equivalent to monopolar stimulation by setting σ to 0 () and a configuration that used the largest value of σ for each individual subject (). 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 overlapConclusions:(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.

Cochlear Implantation in Elderly Patients with Residual Hearing.

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the range of hearing levels in a cochlear implant (CI) elderly population receiving electric-acoustic-stimulation (EAS) or electric-stimulation (ES) alone. The investigation evaluates the degree of hearing preservation (HP) and the speech comprehension resulting from EAS or ES-only to identify audiometric factors that predict adequate EAS and ES use. We analyzed the pure tone audiometry and speech perception in quiet and noise preoperatively and 12-months after activation of 89 elderly adults (age of 65 years old or older), yielding in total 97 CIs. Thirty-two (33.1%) patients were potential EAS candidates preoperatively, of which 18 patients used EAS at the time of first fitting and the other 14 patients continued to use their residual hearing for EAS at 12-months. Post-treatment, patients with EAS system and ES-only users’ with longer electrodes showed better results in monosyllable word scores in quiet than ES-only users with shorter electrodes. A similar trend was revealed for the speech recognition in noise. Patients with an EAS system benefit from maintaining their natural residual hearing. Nevertheless, strict preoperative patient selection is warranted particularly in elderly patients, in whom the hearing thresholds for EAS indication differ slightly from that in younger adults.

Effects of the Configuration of Hearing Loss on Consonant Perception between Simulated Bimodal and Electric Acoustic Stimulation Hearing.

Cochlear implant technology allows for acoustic and electric stimulations to be combined across ears (bimodal) and within the same ear (electric acoustic stimulation [EAS]). Mechanisms used to integrate speech acoustics may be different between the bimodal and EAS hearing, and the configurations of hearing loss might be an important factor for the integration. Thus, differentiating the effects of different configurations of hearing loss on bimodal or EAS benefit in speech perception (differences in performance with combined acoustic and electric stimulations from a better stimulation alone) is important. Using acoustic simulation, we determined how consonant recognition was affected by different configurations of hearing loss in bimodal and EAS hearing. A mixed design was used with one between-subject variable (simulated bimodal group vs. simulated EAS group) and one within-subject variable (acoustic stimulation alone, electric stimulation alone, and combined acoustic and electric stimulations). Twenty adult subjects (10 for each group) with normal hearing were recruited. Consonant perception was unilaterally or bilaterally measured in quiet. For the acoustic stimulation, four different simulations of hearing loss were created by band-pass filtering consonants with a fixed lower cutoff frequency of 100 Hz and each of the four upper cutoff frequencies of 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 Hz. For the electric stimulation, an eight-channel noise vocoder was used to generate a typical spectral mismatch by using fixed input (200-7,000 Hz) and output (1,000-7,000 Hz) frequency ranges. The effects of simulated hearing loss on consonant recognition were compared between the two groups. Significant bimodal and EAS benefits occurred regardless of the configurations of hearing loss and hearing technology (bimodal vs. EAS). Place information was better transmitted in EAS hearing than in bimodal hearing. These results suggest that configurations of hearing loss are not a significant factor for integrating consonant information between acoustic and electric stimulations. The results also suggest that mechanisms used to integrate consonant information may be similar between bimodal and EAS hearing.

Categorical perception of lexical tones based on acoustic-electric stimulation.

The effect of low-frequency acoustic input on the categorical perception of lexical tones was investigated with simulated electric-acoustic hearing. A synthesized T1-T2 (flat-rising) tone continuum of Mandarin monosyllables /i/ was used, and they were manipulated as five conditions: unprocessed, low-frequency acoustic-only, electric-only, electric-acoustic stimulation, and bimodal stimulation. Results showed the performance under electric-only condition was the significantly lowest, and the difference of other pairwise comparisons between conditions was quite small. These findings suggest that the low-frequency acoustic input can shape the categorical perception, and the combinations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears have no significant effect.

Cochlear implant technology: past, present and future

<p indent=0mm>Cochlear implant (CI) technology can help the majority of patients with severe to profound sensorineural deafness to restore hearing. This technology was first launched in 1800 by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta who found that electrical stimulation of the normal ear can produce hearing. In the 1960s, it began to enter the practical stage, and underwent technological development in two directions, single-channel and multi-channel. In 1979, the single-channel cochlear implant was successfully developed in Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), and the first cochlear implantation in China was performed in 1980 in PUMCH. The first multi-channel cochlear implantation in China was also performed in PUMCH in May 1995. As the technology progressed, cochlear implantation with electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS), bilateral cochlear implantation, and robot-assisted cochlear implantation gradually went on stage. The first EAS cochlear implantation in China was performed in 2012 in PUMCH, and research on bilateral cochlear implantation in PUMCH ranks at the forefront in China. With increasing successful cases of surgery, the indications for cochlear implantation have gradually extended. In 2008, preoperative electrical stimulation auditory evoked potential technology was successfully developed in PUMCH, which is novel in China, and by which a large number of difficult and complex cases were successfully implanted with CI. Cochlear implantation for unilateral deafness and tinnitus and robot-assisted cochlear implantation have also been carried out worldwide. The first robot-assisted cochlear implantation in China was successfully performed in 2020 in Shanghai 9^th People’s Hospital. At the same time, the research of optical cochlear implant has entered the experimental stage. This paper summarizes the development of cochlear implant technology in China and abroad, the current technical expansion and the future development trend, to provide reference for its technological progress.

EAS-Combined electric and acoustic stimulation

Electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is a special treatment modality for those patients who are profoundly deaf in the high-frequency (HF) region and retain usable hearing in the low-frequency (LF) region. Combining the electric stimulation with cochlear implant (CI) in the HF and acoustic amplification of residual hearing using a conventional hearing aid (HA) in the LF region defines EAS. The EAS concept was first proposed by C. von Ilberg from Frankfurt, Germany in the year 1997. In association with MED-EL, all the necessary safety studies were performed in non-human subjects before the first patient received it in 1997. In association with MED-EL, all the necessary safety studies were performed in non-human subjects before the first patient received it in 1999. For the patient to successfully use the EAS concept, the residual hearing needs to be preserved to a high extent and for several years. This requires a highly flexible electrode array in safeguarding the intra-cochlear structures during and after the CI electrode array insertion. Combining the HA unit with the audio processor unit of the CI was necessary for the convenient wearing of the unified audio processor. Fitting of the unified audio processor is another important factor that contributes to the overall success of the EAS treatment. The key translational research efforts at MED-EL were on the development of flexible electrodes, a unified audio processor, innovations in the fitting process, intra-operative monitoring of cochlear health during electrode insertion, pre-operative soft-ware tool to evaluate the cochlear size and electrode selection and some new innovations tried within EAS topic. This article covers the milestones of translational research from the first concept to the widespread clinical use of EAS.

Comparison of Speech Recognition With an Organ of Corti Versus Spiral Ganglion Frequency-to-Place Function in Place-Based Mapping of Cochlear Implant and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

To compare acute speech recognition with a cochlear implant (CI) alone or electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) device for place-based maps calculated with an organ of Corti (OC) versus a spiral ganglion (SG) frequency-to-place function. Eleven adult CI recipients of a lateral wall electrode array. Postoperative imaging was used to derive place-based maps calculated with an OC versus SG function. Phoneme recognition was evaluated at initial activation with consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) words presented using an OC versus a SG place-based map. For the 9 CI-alone users, there was a nonsignificant trend for better acute phoneme recognition with the SG map (mean 18 RAUs) than the OC map (mean 9 RAUs; p = 0.071, 95% CI [≤-1.2]). When including the 2 EAS users in the analysis, performance was significantly better with the SG map (mean 21 RAUs) than the OC map (mean 7 RAUs; p = 0.019, 95% CI [≤-6.2]). Better phoneme recognition with the SG frequency-to-place function could indicate more natural tonotopic alignment of information compared with the OC place-based map.A prospective, randomized investigation is currently underway to assess longitudinal outcomes with place-based mapping in CI-alone and EAS devices using the SG frequency-to-place function.

Residual Hair Cell Responses in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Complete Loss of Acoustic Hearing After Implantation.

Changes in cochlear implant (CI) design and surgical techniques have enabled the preservation of residual acoustic hearing in the implanted ear. While most Nucleus Hybrid L24 CI users retain significant acoustic hearing years after surgery, 6-17 % experience a complete loss of acoustic hearing (Roland et al. Laryngoscope. 126(1):175-81. (2016), Laryngoscope. 128(8):1939-1945 (2018); Scheperle et al. Hear Res. 350:45-57 (2017)). Electrocochleography (ECoG) enables non-invasive monitoring of peripheral auditory function and may provide insight into the pathophysiology of hearing loss. The ECoG response is evoked using an acoustic stimulus and includes contributions from the hair cells (cochlear microphonic-CM) as well as the auditory nerve (auditory nerve neurophonic-ANN). Seven Hybrid L24 CI users with complete loss of residual hearing months after surgery underwent ECoG measures before and after loss of hearing. While significant reductions in CMs were evident after hearing loss, all participants had measurable CMs despite having no measurable acoustic hearing. None retained measurable ANNs. Given histological data suggesting stable hair cell and neural counts after hearing loss (e.g., Quesnel et al. Hear Res. 333:225-234. (2016)), the loss of ECoG and audiometric hearing may reflect reduced synaptic input. This is consistent with the theory that residual CM responses coupled with little to no ANN responses reflect a "disconnect" between hair cells and auditory nerve fibers (Fontenot et al. Ear Hear. 40(3):577-591. 2019). This "disconnection" may prevent proper encoding of auditory stimulation at higher auditory pathways, leading to a lack of audiometric responses, even in the presence of viable cochlear hair cells.

Surgical strategy of minimally invasive cochlear implantation

Cochlear implantation is currently the most effective treatment for patients with severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. How to achieve minimally invasive treatment, preserve the residual hearing, and further improve curative effect and reduce surgical complications is the goal of cochlear implantation practice. This article introduces the minimally invasive cochlear implantation technique in terms of the idea of minimally invasive operation, the advantages of electric acoustic stimulation, the key points of electrode implantation technique, the design of surgical incision, and the precise processing of perioperative period. This technique not only has the merits of less operative damage and better hearing and speech rehabilitation after surgery, but also reserves favorable structures and function for the future application of gene therapy and hair cell regeneration technique. Therefore, it is strongly recommended for further promotion in clinical practice.

Cochlear Implant-Based Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Modulates Neural Stem Cell-Derived Neural Regeneration

Cochlear implantation is considered to be the best therapeutic method for profound sensorineural hearing loss, but insufficient numbers of functional spiral ganglion neurons hinder the clinical effects of cochlear implantation. Stem cell transplantation has the potential to provide novel strategies for spiral ganglion neuron regeneration after injury. However, some obstacles still need to be overcome, such as low survival and uncontrolled differentiation. Several novel technologies show promise for modulating neural stem cell behaviors to address these issues. Here, a device capable of electrical stimulation was designed by combining a cochlear implant with a graphene substrate. Neural stem cells (NSCs) were cultured on the graphene substrate and subjected to electrical stimulation transduced from sound waves detected by the cochlear implant. Cell behaviors were studied, and this device showed good biocompatibility for NSCs. More importantly, electric-acoustic stimulation with higher frequencies and amplitudes induced NSC death and apoptosis, and electric-acoustic stimulation could promote NSCs to proliferate and differentiate into neurons only when low-frequency stimulation was supplied. The present study provides experimental evidence for understanding the regulatory role of electric-acoustic stimulation on NSCs and highlights the potentials of the above-mentioned device in stem cell therapy for hearing loss treatment.

Cochlear implant-based electric-acoustic stimulation modulates neural stem cell-derived neural regeneration.

Cochlear implantation is considered to be the best therapeutic method for profound sensorineural hearing loss, but insufficient numbers of functional spiral ganglion neurons hinder the clinical effects of cochlear implantation. Stem cell transplantation has the potential to provide novel strategies for spiral ganglion neuron regeneration after injury. However, some obstacles still need to be overcome, such as low survival and uncontrolled differentiation. Several novel technologies show promise for modulating neural stem cell behaviors to address these issues. Here, a device capable of electrical stimulation was designed by combining a cochlear implant with a graphene substrate. Neural stem cells (NSCs) were cultured on the graphene substrate and subjected to electrical stimulation transduced from sound waves detected by the cochlear implant. Cell behaviors were studied, and this device showed good biocompatibility for NSCs. More importantly, electric-acoustic stimulation with higher frequencies and amplitudes induced NSC death and apoptosis, and electric-acoustic stimulation could promote NSCs to proliferate and differentiate into neurons only when low-frequency stimulation was supplied. The present study provides experimental evidence for understanding the regulatory role of electric-acoustic stimulation on NSCs and highlights the potentials of the above-mentioned device in stem cell therapy for hearing loss treatment.