Abstract
In modern cochlear implants, the electrode array has a small volume, is less stiff, and is positioned to prevent traumatic contact with the fine structure of the cochlea. With these improvements, the electrode array causes less trauma, and preservation of residual inner ear function is possible. Newly developed speech coding strategies are based on the psychology of hearing. The fine structure of speech is reproduced by mimicking the temporal excitatory patterns of inner hair cells. The role of the virtual channel is to excite the spiral ganglion neurons located between two electrode contacts by controlling the current spread from two neighboring electrodes. The psychoacoustic masking model is also utilized in channel selection. This model considers the physiological masking effect and reduces the number of stimulated channels without deteriorating the speech understanding. Due to the development of atraumatic electrode arrays, residual hearing at low frequencies can be preserved after cochlear implantation. The remaining hearing can be utilized to transmit low-frequency sounds, and the spiral ganglion neurons in the basal turn, which transmit high-frequency sounds, can be electrically stimulated (electric acoustic stimulation). Bilateral cochlear implantation is also a new trend. The use of two implants improves sound source localization and speech understanding in noisy environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Hiraumi H, Tsuji J, Kanemaru S, Fujino K, Ito J. Cochlear implants in post-lingually deafened patients. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2007;557:17–21. doi:10.1080/03655230601065225.
Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. Speech perception by adults with multichannel implants. In: Waltzman SB, Roland JT, Jr, editors. Cochlear implants. 2nd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2006. p. 193–204.
Hiraumi H, Yamamoto N, Sakamoto T, Ito J. Cochlear implantation in patients with prelingual hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2010;563:4–10. doi:10.3109/00016489.2010.487192.
Wilson BS, Dorman MF. Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future. Hear Res. 2008;242(1–2):3–21. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.005.
Wackym PA, Firszt JB, Gaggl W, Runge-Samuelson CL, Reeder RM, Raulie JC. Electrophysiologic effects of placing cochlear implant electrodes in a perimodiolar position in young children. Laryngoscope. 2004;114(1):71–6. doi:10.1097/00005537-200401000-00012.
Wardrop P, Whinney D, Rebscher SJ, Roland Jr JT, Luxford W, Leake PA. A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: comparison of nucleus banded and nucleus contour electrodes. Hear Res. 2005;203(1–2):54–67. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2004.11.006.
Stover T, Issing P, Graurock G, Erfurt P, ElBeltagy Y, Paasche G, et al. Evaluation of the advance off-stylet insertion technique and the cochlear insertion tool in temporal bones. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26(6):1161–70.
Glueckert R, Pfaller K, Kinnefors A, Rask-Andersen H, Schrott-Fischer A. The human spiral ganglion: new insights into ultrastructure, survival rate and implications for cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol. 2005;10(5):258–73. doi:10.1159/000086000.
Arnoldner C, Riss D, Brunner M, Durisin M, Baumgartner WD, Hamzavi JS. Speech and music perception with the new fine structure speech coding strategy: preliminary results. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127(12):1298–303. doi:10.1080/00016480701275261.
Bonham BH, Litvak LM. Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics. Hear Res. 2008;242(1–2):141–53. doi:10.1016/j.heares.2008.03.006.
Berenstein CK, Mens LH, Mulder JJ, Vanpoucke FJ. Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations. Ear Hear. 2008;29(2):250–60.
Srinivasan AG, Shannon RV, Landsberger DM. Improving virtual channel discrimination in a multi-channel context. Hear Res. 2012;286(1–2):19–29.
Buchner A, Nogueira W, Edler B, Battmer RD, Lenarz T. Results from a psychoacoustic model-based strategy for the nucleus-24 and freedom cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol. 2008;29(2):189–92. doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e318162512c.
Lenarz T, James C, Cuda D, Fitzgerald O’Connor A, Frachet B, Frijns JH, et al. European multi-centre study of the Nucleus Hybrid L24 cochlear implant. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(12):838–48. doi:10.3109/14992027.2013.802032.
Helbig S, Van de Heyning P, Kiefer J, Baumann U, Kleine-Punte A, Brockmeier H, et al. Combined electric acoustic stimulation with the PULSARCI(100) implant system using the FLEX(EAS) electrode array. Acta Otolaryngol. 2011;131(6):585–95. doi:10.3109/00016489.2010.544327.
Lammers MJ, van der Heijden GJ, Pourier VE, Grolman W. Bilateral cochlear implantation in children: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Laryngoscope. 2014. doi:10.1002/lary.24582.
Bonnard D, Lautissier S, Bosset-Audoit A, Coriat G, Beraha M, Maunoury A, et al. Comparison between bilateral cochlear implants and Neurelec Digisonic((R)) SP Binaural cochlear implant: speech perception, sound localization and patient self-assessment. Audiol Neurootol. 2013;18(3):171–83. doi:10.1159/000346933.
Izzo AD, Richter CP, Jansen ED, Walsh Jr JT. Laser stimulation of the auditory nerve. Lasers in surgery and medicine. 2006;38(8):745–53. doi:10.1002/lsm.20358.
Theunisse HJ, Gotthardt M, Mylanus EA. Surgical planning and evaluation of implanting a penetrating cochlear nerve implant in human temporal bones using microcomputed tomography. Otol Neurotol. 2012;33(6):1027–33. doi:10.1097/MAO.0b013e318259b5b3.
Inaoka T, Shintaku H, Nakagawa T, Kawano S, Ogita H, Sakamoto T, et al. Piezoelectric materials mimic the function of the cochlear sensory epithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(45):18390–5. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110036108.
Niedermeier K, Braun S, Fauser C, Kiefer J, Straubinger RK, Stark T. A safety evaluation of dexamethasone-releasing cochlear implants: comparative study on the risk of otogenic meningitis after implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132(12):1252–60. doi:10.3109/00016489.2012.701017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hiraumi, H. (2014). Recent Progress in Cochlear Implant. In: Ito, J. (eds) Regenerative Medicine for the Inner Ear. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54862-1_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54862-1_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-54861-4
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-54862-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)