Toward a method of achieving balanced stimulation of bilateral auditory nerves: Evidence from children receiving matched and unmatched bilateral cochlear implants simultaneously

• Published in: Hearing research 2022-03, Vol.416, p.108445-108445, Article 108445
• Main Authors: Tsai, P., Wisener, N., Papsin, B.C., Cushing, S.L., Gordon, K.A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Asymmetric hearing; Bilateral cochlear implant; Child; Children; Cochlear Implantation - methods; Cochlear Implants; Cochlear Nerve - physiology; Compound action potential of the auditory nerve (ECAP); Deafness; Electrode array; Electrophysiology; Evoked Potentials, Auditory - physiology; Humans; Neural response telemetry; Research Design; Speech Perception
• ISSN: 0378-5955; 1878-5891
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2022.108445

•ECAP amplitudes require higher CU from the anti- vs peri-modiolar array.•Matched ECAP amplitudes are not well predicted by MAP levels.•Mismatched bilateral CIs in children increases risk of unbalanced input.•Mismatched bilateral CIs in children increases risk of asymmetric hearing. To identify whether mismatched bilateral cochlear implants compromise balanced stimulation of the two auditory nerves and establish asymmetric hearing in children. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures were completed in 47 children receiving bilateral CIs in the same surgery (simultaneously): 27 children received a peri‑modiolar N24RE array in one ear and a 422 anti-modiolar array in the other (experimental group) and 20 children received 2 peri‑modiolar arrays (control group). Differences in current levels between the two devices were measured by electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) at the time of surgery. These data were compared with minimum and maximum comfortably loud levels programmed in each speech processor (T-levels, C-levels, respectively) after 12 months of bilateral CI use. Asymmetries in functional hearing between arrays were measured in open set speech perception testing between 3 to 5 years of CI use. Higher current levels were required from the anti-modiolar than peri‑modiolar array to evoke balanced interaural ECAP amplitudes (mismatched group: mean ± SD difference: -9.9 ± 22.6; matched group: -0.8 ± 26.5). This difference was larger in the experimental group than control group (t = -2.51; p = 0.016) and remained constant with increases in current level from ECAP threshold to maximum amplitudes (dynamic range) in many but not all children in both groups. T and C-levels were poorly predictive of levels needed to evoke balanced ECAP amplitudes in children with mismatched devices (F(1, 312) = 1.3, p = 0.263). Speech perception scores were more asymmetric between ears in children using bilateral mismatched arrays (mean ± SD: 73.8 ± 16.4 at the peri‑modiolar array; 57.7 ± 26.4 at the anti-modiolar array), compared to children with bilateral matched arrays (right ear: 78.0 ± 10.4; left ear: 74.9 ± 13.5). Higher current level requirements at the anti-modiolar array compared to the peri‑modiolar array in children with bilateral mismatched CIs are not fully accounted for in device programming. Mismatched electrodes in children receiving bilateral cochlear implants increases the risk of asymmetric hearing.