COCHELEA

IEEE REVIEWS IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.
1, 2008 115
Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and

Evaluation
Fan-Gang Zeng, Senior Member, IEEE, Stephen Rebscher, William Harrison, Xiaoan Sun, and Haihong Feng
Clinical Application Review
Abstract—As the most successful neural prosthesis, cochlear I. INTRODUCTION

implants have provided partial hearing to more than 120 000
persons worldwide; half of which being pediatric users who are
SING electric currents to directly stimulate the auditory
able to develop nearly normal language. Biomedical engineers
have played a central role in the design, integration and evaluation
of the cochlear implant system, but the overall success is a result
U nerve in a totally deafened person, the cochlear implant
is the only means available at present to penetrate the “inhuman
of collaborative work with physiologists, psychologists, physicians, silence which separates and estranges,” as stated by the famous
educators, and entrepreneurs. This review presents broad yet blind-deaf writer, lecturer, and social advocate, Helen Keller
in-depth academic and industrial perspectives on the underlying (1880–1968). The development of the cochlear implant has a
research and ongoing development of cochlear implants. The long, distinguished, and interesting history, including dynamic
introduction accounts for major events and advances in cochlear
interplays between engineers and physicians as well as an intri-
implants, including dynamic interplays among engineers, scien-
tists, physicians, and policy makers. The review takes a system
cate balance between experimentation and ethics (Fig. 1). The
approach to address critical issues in cochlear implant research cochlear implant today has not only provided useful hearing
and development. First, the cochlear implant system design and to more than 120 000 deaf persons, but also become a multi-
specifications are laid out. Second, the design goals, principles, billion-dollar industry, attracting discussion in the MBA class-
and methods of the subsystem components are identified from the room, and attention in popular culture from the Oscar nominated
external speech processor and radio frequency transmission link documentary film Sound and Fury to TV shows such as ER, The
to the internal receiver, stimulator and electrode arrays. Third, Young and The Restless, and Cold Case.
system integration and functional evaluation are presented with The journey started with a “crackling and boiling” sensa-
respect to safety, reliability, and challenges facing the present and
tion, when the Italian scientist Alessandro Volta (1745–1827)
future cochlear implant designers and users. Finally, issues beyond
cochlear implants are discussed to address treatment options for
placed the two ends of a 50-volt battery to his ears more than
the entire spectrum of hearing impairment as well as to use the two centuries ago [1]. The unpleasant sensation was likely the
cochlear implant as a model to design and evaluate other similar first demonstration that electric stimulation, instead of sound
neural prostheses such as vestibular and retinal implants. and light, can induce auditory and visual sensations. In honor
Index Terms—Auditory brainstem, auditory nerve, auditory of Volta’s work in electricity, an important electrical unit, the
prosthesis, biocompatibility, biomaterials, current source, electric volt ( ), was named after him. In addition, Napoleon made him
stimulation, electrode, fine structure, hermetic sealing, loudness, a Count and established the annual Volta prize.
music perception, pitch, radio frequency, safety, signal processing, In 1880, the most notable Volta prize went to Alexander
speech recognition, temporal resolution. Graham Bell (1847–1922) who received 50 000 francs for
his invention of the telephone. Bell used the prize to help
Manuscript received August 27, 2008; revised October 07, 2008. First pub- hearing-impaired people including his deaf wife and Helen
lished November 05, 2008; current version published December 17, 2008. The Keller (who devoted her first book, The Story of My Life, to
work was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Depart-
ment of Health & Human Services under Grant RO1-DC002267, Grant RO1- him). Although it is hard to tell whether Bell had envisioned
DC008858, Grant P30-DC008369, and Grant HHS-N-263-2007-00054-C, by it, there is no question that Bell’s enterprise, the Research
The Chinese Academy of Sciences Pilot Project of the Knowledge Innovation Laboratories of the Bell Telephone System, conducted early
Program under Grant KGCX2-YX-607, and the Key Technologies R&D Pro-
gram of the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of comprehensive research in hearing and speech that forms the
China under Grant 2008BA150B08. theoretical foundation needed for later success of the cochlear
F. G. Zeng is with the Departments of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Biomed-
ical Engineering, Cognitive Sciences and Otolaryngology – Head and Neck
implant [2]. For example, Bell Labs’ vocoders that describe
Surgery, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 USA (e-mail: fzeng@uci. how to break up and then reassemble speech [3], [4] have been
edu). absolutely critical to the development of signal processing in
S. Rebscher is with the Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck modern cochlear implant systems [5]–[7].
Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA.
W. Harrison is with Silere Medical Technology, Inc., Kirkland, WA 98034 Over the next 150 years, a few brave ones repeated Volta’s
USA. heroic experiment and all obtained the same disagreeable sensa-
X. Sun is with Nurotron Biotechnology Inc., Irvine, CA 92618 USA. tion as a result of the direct current (dc) stimulation [8], [9]. Rec-
H. Feng is with the Shanghai Acoustics Laboratory, Institute of Acoustics,
Academia Sinica, Shanghai 200032, China. ognizing the danger of dc stimulation and armed with vacuum-
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/RBME.2008.2008250 tube-based oscillators and amplifiers, Harvard researchers S. S.
1937-3333/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering. Downloaded on June 22,2010 at 06:41:14 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
116 IEEE REVIEWS IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 1, 2008
Fig. 1. Three phases defining the major events in the development of cochlear implants. The conceptualization phases demonstrated the feasibility of electric
stimulation. The research and development phase legitimized the utility and safety of electric stimulation. The commercialization phase saw a wide spread use of
electric stimulation in treating sensorineural hearing loss.
Stevens and his colleagues used ac (sinusoidal) electric stimula- lasted two weeks but both patients reported useful hearing with
tion to identify three mechanisms underlying the “electrophonic electric stimulation. In 1964, Blair Simmons at Stanford im-
perception” in the 1930s [10]–[12]. The first mechanism was re- planted a cluster of six stainless-steel electrodes into the audi-
lated to the eardrum’s conversion of the electric signal into an tory nerve through the modiolus in a 60-year-old man with pro-
acoustic signal, resulting in a tonal pitch perception but at the found hearing loss. In 1971, Robin Michelson in San Francisco
doubled signal frequency. The second mechanism was related implanted a form-fitting (from human temporal bones) single-
to the “electromechanical effect,” in which electric stimulation channel electrode pair in four deaf patients. In 1978, Graeme
causes the hair cells in the cochlea to vibrate, resulting in a per- Clark in Australia developed a 20-electrode (Platinum rings)
ceived tonal pitch at the signal frequency as if it were acousti- cochlear implant system and implanted in two deaf patients.
cally stimulated. Only the third mechanism was related to direct Other similar experimental efforts included Chouard in France
electric activation of the auditory nerve, as the subjects reported [21], Eddington in Utah [22], and Horchmair in Austria [23].
noise-like sensation in response to sinusoidal electrical stimula- However, the efficacy of these early cochlear implants, par-
tion, much steeper loudness growth with electric currents, and ticularly the single-electrode systems, met with strong suspicion
occasionally activation of nonauditory facial nerves. and perhaps resistance from the mainstream scientific commu-
In the middle of last century, physicians became the driving nity in 1970s. Compared with the three thousand tuned inner
force to translate these early research efforts into clinical prac- hair cells in a normal cochlea, a single electrode cannot provide
tice. In 1957, A French physician, Djourno and his colleagues the level of tuning and timing that resembles the normal pat-
reported successful hearing using electric stimulation in two to- tern of neural activity produced by acoustic stimulation. For ex-
tally deafened patients [13]–[15]. Their successful story crossed ample, Nelson Kiang, a prominent physiologist at Harvard and
the Atlantic, spurred an intensive level of activity in attempts to MIT, suggested that little or no discriminative hearing could be
restore hearing to deaf people, mostly on the U.S. west coast generated from a single-electrode cochlear implant [20], [24].
in the 1960s and 1970s [16]–[19]. By one historian’s account Even the National Institutes of Health (NIH) condemned human
[20], William House in Los Angeles, CA, in 1961 implanted a implantation as being morally and scientifically unacceptable in
gold electrode insulated with silicone rubber in the scala tym- the early 1970s [25]. At that time, any researchers who became
pani of two deaf patients. He used a low-frequency square wave involved in cochlear implants did so at their own professional
(40–200 Hz) as the carrier of electric simulation, whose ampli- risk. To settle the scientific issues, Michael Merzenich and col-
tude was modulated by the sound. House’s initial device only leagues organized the First International Conference on Elec-
ZENG et al.: COCHLEAR IMPLANTS: SYSTEM DESIGN, INTEGRATION, AND EVALUATION 117
Fig. 3. Sentence recognition scores with a quiet background as a function of

time for the 3M/House single-electrode device (first column), the Cochlear Nu-
cleus device (filled bars), the Advanced Bionics Clarion device (open bars), and
Fig. 2. Exponential growth of cochlear implant research and sales. Note the the Med-El device (shaded bars). Previous results before 2004 were summarized
10-year delay for sales growth. The data of annual publications on cochlear im- in Zeng [40]. The latest results were obtained in the following references: Nu-
plants (filled green bars with the unit on the left y -axis) were collected using key- cleus Freedom [41], Clarion HiRes system [42], and Med-El Opus device [43].
words (cochlear AND implant) in PubMed (http://www.pubmed.gov) on June For a detailed description of the acronyms, see Section III.
19, 2008. The sales data (open purple bars with the unit on the right y -axis) were
disclosed in Cochlear annual report (http://www.cochlear.com.au). Insert: An-
nual sale number of 3M/House single-electrode (blue line) and nucleus multi-
electrode (purple line) cochlear implants between 1982 and 1989 [25]. Nucleus Limited (a medical device company focusing on pace-
makers) entered a public and private cooperative agreement
in 1979 to manufacture and market the 22-electrode cochlear
trical Stimulation of the Acoustic Nerve as a Treatment for Pro- implant. In middle 1980s, NIH also helped speed up the ac-
found Sensorineural Deafness in Man in San Francisco in 1973. ceptance of multi-electrode cochlear implants by funding the
An outcome of this conference was, as shown in Fig. 2, an inten- UCSF and the University of Melbourne device development
sified research effort in cochlear implants, particularly using an- (1RO1-NS21027) and hosting the first consensus conference
imal experiments, in the mid 1970s to 1980s. To settle the safety concluding that “multichannel implants may have some supe-
and efficacy issues, NIH, in 1975, commissioned Bilger and col- rior features in adults when compared with the single-channel
leagues at the University of Pittsburgh to evaluate objectively type” [33]. Time proved that the multi-electrode devices in-
and independently the audiological performance in the world’s deed not only produced much superior performance over the
first group of single-electrode cochlear implant recipients, in- single-electrode devices (Fig. 3), but also eventually phased out
cluding 11 implanted by House and 2 by Michelson [26]–[31]. the single-electrode devices in the market (Fig. 2).
Bilger’s report confirmed that the single-electrode cochlear im- In addition to the Nucleus device, several other multi-elec-
plants provided useful hearing in terms of aiding lipread and trode devices were also developed. The University of Utah de-
identifying common environmental sounds, but these devices veloped a six-electrode implant with a percutaneous plug in-
could not provide open-set speech recognition. To a large ex- terface [22], [34] and was called either the Ineraid or Symbion
tent, the San Francisco meeting and Bilger report legitimized device in literature, which was uniquely suited for research pur-
the cochlear implant as an acceptable and valid clinical prac- poses [35]–[38]. The University of Antwerp in Belgium devel-
tice. oped the Laura device that could deliver either 8-channel bipolar
Next, the race to commercialize the cochlear implant had just or 15-channel monopolar stimulation. These devices were later
begun because the technology for commercialization was ripe. bought out and are no longer available commercially. The MXM
The development of cardiac pacemakers helped identify bio- laboratories in France also developed a 15-channel monopolar
compatible materials, design insulated electrodes and set safe device, the Digisonic MX20, which is marketed by Neurelec
electric stimulation limits. Thanks to the cold war, advances in (www.neurelec.com).
the space industry provided crucial technology in integrated cir- At present, there are three major cochlear implant man-
cuits and hermetical sealing, with titanium encapsulation still ufacturers including Advanced Bionics Corporation, USA
being the standard for today’s cardiac pacemakers and cochlear (www.advancedbionics.com), Med-El Corporation, Austria
implants. One industrial giant, 3M, became interested, choosing (www.medel.com), and Cochlear Corporation, Australia
to commercialize the simpler and safer House single-electrode (www.cochlear.com), with Cochlear being the dominating
device over the more complicated Melbourne multi-electrode player controlling 70–80% of the cochlear implant market
device in 1978. Indeed, the 3M/House single-electrode implant worldwide. Several startup companies are also developing
was the first to win FDA approval in 1984 and became the in- advanced and low-cost multi-electrode cochlear implants,
dustrial leader with several hundred users in the mid 1980s (see including Advanced Cochlear Systems (www.advcoch.com) in
Insert in Fig. 2). Seattle, Washington, Nurobiosys Corporation in Seoul, Korea
On the other hand, supported by a grant from the Australian [39], and Nurotron Biotechnology Inc. based in both Irvine,
Department of Productivity, the University of Melbourne and CA and Hangzhou, China (www.nurotron.com).
Fig. 3 summarizes sentence recognition scores in quiet by

4 different devices over 27 years. The sentence recognition
task is chosen because it can best measure the user’s ability
to communicate in daily life, e.g., a 70% sentence recognition
score would support a telephone conversation [40]. Starting
out with the single-electrode device providing little or no
open-set speech recognition in 1980, it took 15 years and the
collective effort from academia and industry to achieve this
level of performance, allowing an average multi-electrode
cochlear implant user to converse on the telephone. It appears
that speech recognition in quiet has reached a plateau in the last
10 years, with much effort being focused on improving speech
recognition in noise, music perception and tonal language
understanding, all of which are currently difficult tasks for
implant users (see Section IX for details).
In the remainder of this paper, system design and speci-
fications will be laid out first in terms of the overall system
architecture and functions (Section II). Then the subsystem
components from speech processors to electrode arrays and
fitting programs will be presented and analyzed in depth
(Sections III–VII). System integration will be discussed in Fig. 4. A typical modern cochlear implant system that converts sound to elec-
Section VIII and functional evaluation will be presented in tric impulses delivered to the auditory nerve (www.cochlear.com).
Section IX. The paper will end by addressing issues beyond
cochlear implants in Section X.
II. SYSTEM DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION

The over-arching goal of a cochlear implant is to use electric
stimulation safely to provide or restore functional hearing. Fig. 4
shows graphically a typical modern cochlear implant system.
The behind-the-ear external processor with ear hook and a bat-
tery case (2) uses a microphone to pick up sound, converts the
sound into a digital signal, processed and encodes the digital
signal into a radio frequency (RF) signal, and send it to the an-
tenna inside a headpiece (3). The headpiece is held in place by a
magnet attracted to an internal receiver (4) placed under the skin
behind the ear. A hermetically sealed stimulator (5) contains ac-
tive electronic circuits that derive power from the RF signal, de- Fig. 5. Architecture and functional block diagram of a modern cochlear im-
code the signal, convert it into electric currents, and send them plant. The single-electrode systems had an analog external unit and contained
along wires (6) threaded into the cochlea. The electrodes (7) at no internal active circuits [44]. The Utah six-electrode, four-channel system had
a percutaneous plug and contained no internal circuits [22]. The Nucleus 22 de-
the end of the wire stimulate the auditory nerve (8) connected vice had essentially all components of a modern system, except for the back
to the central nervous system, where the electrical impulses are telemetry circuits [45].
interpreted as sound.
All modern cochlear implant systems have the following ar-
chitecture and functional blocks (Fig. 5). An external unit, also electrodes. All modern systems also contained a feedback loop
known as the speech processor, consists of a digital signal pro- that can monitor critical electric and neural activities in the im-
cessing (DSP) unit, a power amplifier, and an RF transmitter. plants and transmit these activities back to the external unit.
The DSP is the brain of the cochlear implant system that receives Table I summarizes system and functional specifications of
sound, extracts features in the sound, and converts the features the latest cochlear implant from the three major manufacturers.
into a stream of bits that can be transmitted by the RF link. The Over the last 25 years, there seems to be a convergence of tech-
DSP also contains memory units or “maps” that store patient nology in terms of system specifications. For example, the input
specific information. The maps and other speech processing pa- dynamic range (IDR) was set at 30 dB in the early Nucleus 22
rameters can be set or modified by a PC fitting program. device, but has now been increased to be 75–80 dB with the de-
An internal unit consists of the RF receiver and a hermeti- fault value of 45–60 dB in the latest devices to match the range
cally sealed stimulator. Because the internal unit has no battery, of amplitude variations of natural speech and environmental
the stimulator must first derive power from the RF signal. The sounds [48]–[50]. Similarly, the frequency range has broadened
charged up stimulator will then decode the RF bit stream and to include components lower than 300 Hz to take advantage
convert it into electric currents to be delivered to appropriate of the temporal pitch code in an attempt to improve pitch and
TABLE I
SYSTEM AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THREE MAJOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT SYSTEMS. DATA SOURCES: COCHLEAR FREEDOM [46]; CLARION HIRES 90 K
(WWW.BIONICEAR.COM); MED EL OPUS PROCESSOR AND SONATA IMPLANT [47]
tonal language perception [51]–[53]. The latest devices all con- be modeled as a carrier while the vocal tract acts as a modulator,
tain the standard CIS plus other proprietary multiple speech reflecting the opening and closing of the mouth or the nose. Gen-
processing strategies. The Nucleus device is slightly ahead in erally speaking, the source varies rapidly whereas the filters vary
adopting sound field processing, a directional microphone and more slowly. Recently, Zeng has argued for a general model in
other cosmetic (e.g., water resistant) technologies. which the rapidly varying fine structure contributes mainly to
The Nucleus device also has the longest history and the best auditory object formation whereas the slowly varying envelope
reliability record, but it appears to lag behind in the internal unit contributes to speech intelligibility [58].
design and technology. The latest Nucleus Freedom system is Fig. 6 classifies signal processing used in modern cochlear
still the slowest in terms of RF transmission frequency and data implants. Most cochlear implants discard the fine structure and
rate, hence the lowest overall stimulation rate. It has kept to its encode the coarse features only. The first generation multi-elec-
original design from the 1980s with only one current source, trode Nucleus 22 device extracted the fundamental frequency
unable to provide simultaneous stimulation and electrical field (F0), which is a source information reflecting voice pitch, and
imaging. Detailed presentation and analysis of these subsystem the second resonance frequency in the spectral envelope (also
components, functions, and specifications will be provided next. known as the second formant, or F2) [59]. In later versions of
the implant, the first formant was added [60], followed by addi-
III. SIGNAL PROCESSING tional three spectral peaks between 2000 and 8000 Hz [61], [62].
Except for the paradigm shift from the single electrode device Consistent improvement in speech recognition was observed as
to the multi-electrode device in the early 1980s, advances in more spectral details were added (see Fig. 3).
signal processing are largely responsible for the continuous and In the late 1980s and early 1990s, another paradigm shift oc-
steady improvement by cochlear implant users. Because several curred from spectral envelopes to temporal envelopes, showing
review papers have been published to focus on this topic [40], that the temporal envelope from a very limited number of spec-
[54]–[56], this section provides a brief overall review and an tral channels can support a high level of speech recognition [5],
update. [63], [64]. Parallel changes occurred in cochlear implant signal
The theoretical basis for signal processing in cochlear im- processing, from explicit encoding of spectral envelope cues to
plants can be traced to early research in the source-filter model explicit encoding of temporal envelope cues [6], [65].
in speech production [57] and the vocoders in telephone com- Fig. 7(A) shows the functional block diagram of the contin-
munication [3], [4]. Briefly, speech sounds can be modeled as uous-interleaved-sampling (CIS) strategy, which has been im-
either a periodical (for voiced sounds) or noise (for unvoiced plemented by all major manufacturers and is still available in
sounds) source whose frequency spectrum is filtered by the res- their latest devices (see Table I). The sound is first subject to
onance properties in the vocal tract. Alternatively, the source can a number of bandpass filters with the number being as few as
Fig. 6. Classifications of signal processing strategies in cochlear implants.
5 in the original CIS implementation [6] and as many as 20 in

the Nucleus Freedom device [46]. The temporal envelope from
each band is extracted by either half-wave (shown in the figure)
or full-wave rectification followed by a low-pass filter; or more
recently by the Hilbert transform [47], [66]. The envelope is
then logarithmically compressed to match the widely varying
acoustic amplitudes to the narrow electric dynamic range [50],
[67]. The compressed envelope amplitude modulates a fixed-
rate biphasic carrier, whose rate can vary from several hundreds
to several thousands per second. To avoid simultaneous elec-
trical field interference, a problem that apparently bothered early
devices such as the analog Ineraid implant [22], the biphasic
carriers are time interleaved between the bands so that no si-
multaneous stimulation occurs between the bands at any time. In
practice, a single current source is needed in a CIS strategy. The
CIS strategy can avoid simultaneous channel interaction while
preserving the temporal envelope samples for each band as long
as the carrier rate is sufficiently high. Typically the cutoff-fre-
quency of the low-pass envelope filter is set between 400 Hz or
slightly lower, requiring at least 800 Hz carrier for faithful rep-
resentation of these envelopes [6].
Fig. 7(B) shows a functional block diagram of the “ -of- ”
strategy, which was first described by Wilson and colleagues
[68] and had been refined in subsequential development as the
SPEAK and ACE strategies in the Nucleus devices [46], [65].
The pre-processing in the -of- strategy is similar to the CIS
strategy, including the bandpass filters and the envelope ex-
traction blocks. However, there are several major differences Fig. 7. (A) Block diagram and signal processing in the continuous-interleaved-
between the two strategies. One difference is that the -of- sampling (CIS) strategy. (B) Block diagram of the “n-of-m” strategy.
strategy has a greater number of bandpass filters, e.g.,
in the Nucleus implementation, than the CIS strategy. The
number of bandpass filters is typically set to equal the number selected (by definition, ). Envelopes from the selected
of intra-cochlear electrodes. The second difference is that the bands are subject to the same amplitude compression and used
-of- strategy is based on temporal frames, typically lasting to determine the current level of the biphasic pulse. The biphasic
2.5 to 4 msec, whereas the CIS strategy does not have any ex- pulses are interleaved between the output channels, with the per
plicit processing frames. In each frame of the -of- strategy, channel stimulation rate being determined by the frame rate. Fi-
an “ ” number of bands with the largest envelope amplitude are nally, only the corresponding “ ” electrodes (dark bands in the
figure) out of the “ ” electrodes are stimulated in a particular

frame. The SPEAK strategy selects 6–8 largest peaks and has
a fixed 250 Hz per channel rate. The ACE strategy has a larger
range of peak selection and higher rate than the SPEAK strategy.
If , then the SPEAK and ACE strategies are essentially
same as the CIS strategy.
Fig. 8 shows the spectrogram of a sample speech (i.e.,
acoustic input) and electrodograms of the same speech by two
different processing strategies (i.e., electric output). The spec-
trogram is a pseudo 3-D plot, showing frequency ( -axis) and
intensity (color scale) changes as a function of time ( -axis).
The horizontal lines in the voiced portion of the speech represent
harmonics, with the bottom line representing the fundamental
frequency. The energy concentration and movements represent
formant frequency and its transitions. Electrodograms are the
electric parallel to spectrograms, displaying electric stimulation
information such as electrode, amplitude and timing as a func-
tion of time [69]. Electrodograms are an effective and valuable
tool t visualize and evaluate the effects of electric stimulation
parameters and signal processing on cochlear implant perfor-
mance [70], [71].
Panel B shows a six-channel CIS processor output, in which
only the most apical six electrodes are used. Each electrode car-
ries slowly varying envelope information, with the energy differ-
ence between electrodes carrying the spectral information. For
example, the apical electrodes (4–6) are stimulated at a higher
intensity than the basal electrodes (1–3) at 500 ms, when the
sound is a vowel (/a/ as in large); whereas only the most 3 basal
electrodes (1–3) are stimulated at 750 ms, when the sound is a
consonant (/s/ as in size). The insert in panel B shows detailed
timing information between 900 and 910 ms, during which the
interleaved pulses between electrodes can be seen as staggered
lines at 1.25 ms interval (or 800 Hz per electrode stimulation
rate). Note that the electric stimulation pattern does not con-
tain any spectral or temporal fine structure (e.g., fundamental
frequency, harmonics, and formant transition) in the original
sound.
Panel C shows the electrodogram of an 8 of 20 ( of )
SPEAK strategy, which has been implemented in the Nucleus 24
system [65]. In the SPEAK strategy, the number of band-pass fil-
ters can be 16 or 20 (m). Every 4 ms, six or more bands ( ) with
the highest energy are selected and the corresponding electrodes
are stimulated. Compared with the six-channel CIS strategy, the
8 of 20 SPEAK strategy produces more spectral details but less
temporal details because of the much lower per channel stimu-
lation rate at 250 Hz. With the faster Nucleus Freedom system,
the per-channel stimulation rate can be increased to 2500 Hz
to preserve greater temporal details. Cochlear has termed this
“faster” SPEAK strategy as the advanced combination encoder Fig. 8. Spectrogram (panel A) and electrodograms of CIS (panel B) and
SPEAK (panel C) for the sentence: “A large size in stockings is hard to sell.”
or the ACE strategy [46].
At present, signal processing focuses on how to encode spec-
tral and temporal fine structure cues in cochlear implants. To resolution using focused stimulation and the number of func-
encode the spectral fine structure, more independent electrodes tional channels using virtual channels [72]. Recently, encoding
are needed. Given the current electrode manufacturing tech- of the temporal fine structure cue has received much attention
nology and the placement of these electrodes in the cochlea [73]–[78]. One way to encode the fine structure is to increase the
(see Section VI for details), it is difficult to increase the number electric stimulation carrier rate so that the temporal fine struc-
of physical electrodes. Instead, several innovative signal pro- ture cue can be represented in the waveform domain, e.g., Med
cessing techniques are being investigated to increase the spectral El’s FSP processor [47]. A second way is to extract frequency
Fig. 9. RF transmission coding in the nucleus freedom system. Waveform shows the original RF signal, with its amplitude being modulated on and off. The
numbers below the waveform show the raw bits recovered from the RF signal. The raw bits are grouped into 6, coding the discrete data token.
TABLE II A. Bit Coding

RF DATA TRANSMISSION SPECIFICATIONS IN THREE MAJOR COCHLEAR
IMPLANT MANUFACTURERS The output of the external unit is a digital stream of 1s and 0s.
Prior to sending these bits to the RF power amplifier, bit coding
is usually required for reliable and accurate wireless transmis-
sion and decoding. At present, the major cochlear implant man-
ufacturers, at least in their forward transmission systems, all use
the amplitude shift keying (ASK) modulation for RF transmis-
sion. Fig. 9 shows a two-layered bit coding ASK scheme imple-
mented in the Nucleus Freedom system [81]. In the first layer,
1 is coded by 5 ON cycles of the 5 MHz carrier frequency,
i.e., RF is present for 5 cycles; 0 is by 5 OFF cycles of the
5 MHz carrier frequency, i.e., RF not present for 5 cycles. In
the present example, the amplitude modulated RF signal gives a
111011110111 bit pattern, displayed right underneath the wave-
form. In the second layer, the raw bit signal is grouped into 6 bits
modulation from the temporal fine structure and then use it to to encode a 3-bit data token. In this example, the raw bit signal
frequency modulate the carrier rate [79]. A third way is to use “111011” represents a data token “110,” whereas “110111” rep-
multiple carriers to encode the fine frequency structure [80]. The resents a data token “010.” There are a total of 8 data tokens
effectiveness of these new strategies has not been demonstrated , plus two synchronization tokens and two error to-
in actual cochlear implant users. kens that are defined by the same 6-bit patterns, for a total of 12
tokens. The 12 tokens are only a subset of the available 64 pat-
terns , with the rest being unused. This redundancy is
IV. RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) LINK
critical for the system to detect transmission errors. In case the
To ensure safety and to improve convenience, the internal unit decoder produces a pattern that is not part of the 10 data tokens,
in all modern devices is now connected to the external unit via or the 2 synchronization tokens, or the two error tokens, then
a transcutaneous RF link. The RF link uses a pair of inductively the system detects it as an error.
coupled coils to transmit both power and data. The RF trans-
mission has to address a host of challenging technical issues B. Frame Coding
[81]–[83]. For example, the external unit needs to provide not The RF link uses a frame or packet coding scheme to transmit
only reliable communication protocols including a signal mod- specific stimulus parameters to the internal stimulator. In the
ulation method, bit coding, frame coding, synchronization and Nucleus system, the parameters include pulse amplitude, pulse
back telemetry detection, but also high-efficiency RF power am- duration, pulse gap, active electrode and return electrode that
plifier and immunity to electromagnetic interference (EMI). The are used to define a biphasic pulse and the stimulation mode.
internal unit, on the other hand, needs to harvest power with high Dependent on the timing relationship between a frame and the
efficiency and retrieve data with high accuracy. In addition, the pulses it generates, frame coding schemes can be classified by
size of the transmitting and receiving coils needs to be mini- either the expanded mode or the embedded mode.
mized and cosmetically appealing. Table II describes RF char- The expanded mode was first used by Cochlear in the Nucleus
acteristics of the 3 major cochlear implant manufacturers. The 22 device with a carrier frequency of 2.5 MHz and later in the
remainder of this section focuses on bit coding, frame coding, Nucleus 24 device with a carrier frequency of 5 MHz [81], [84].
and power management. Fig. 10 shows the expanded frame coding used in the Nucleus
Fig. 11. The embedded mode frame coding scheme.
Fig. 10. The expanded mode frame coding scheme in the Nucleus system.
such as electrode, mode, and amplitude. Finally, the amplitude
and pulse duration parameters are prone to RF cycle detection
24 system, in which a frame consists of a SYNC burst and an errors, which may lead to an unbalanced charge.
additional five bursts that specify a legal biphasic pulse [85]. The To overcome the limitations of the expanded mode, the em-
SYNC burst is short, containing no more than seven RF clock bedded mode frame coding scheme was developed and has be-
cycles. come the de-facto standard for the current cochlear implants
The number of RF cycles ( ) within each burst is multiples [86]. Fig. 11 illustrates schematically the embedded mode frame
of eight cycles and conveys the information needed to specify coding scheme. The basic idea is to transmit the information re-
the electric biphasic pulse. The active electrode number is deter- garding electrode, mode, and amplitude ( , & ) for the next
mined by , where , and ranges between biphasic stimulus, shown as , while the present
1 and 22. The stimulation mode is determined by , stimulus, shown as , is being delivered. Another ad-
where , and ranges between 1 and 30. When the vantage of the embedded mode is that there is a period of time
stimulation mode returns a number between 1 and 22, it speci- between the end of the present stimulus and the start of the next
fies bipolar (BP) configuration with the return electrode being in stimulus for the internal circuitry to check the validity of stim-
the cochlea (however, the active and return electrodes cannot be ulation parameters, , and . In case of errors, the stimulus
the same). On other hand, monopolar stimulation is specified can be stopped before it is actually delivered.
by a stimulation mode number of 24 with the reference elec-
trode being a ball electrode placed under the temporalis muscle C. Maximum Total Stimulation Rate
(MP1), 25 being a plate electrode on the package (MP2), and 30 The maximum total stimulation rate depends upon the bit rate
being both the plate and the ball electrodes ( ). The pulse and the frame rate in the RF transmission link. Using five RF cy-
amplitude is coded by 271-n, where , resulting cles to encode the raw bits and 6 raw bits to encode three actual
in 256 discrete clinical units from 255 to 0. The pulse duration data bits, the bit rate is 250 kB/second in the Nucleus 22 system
of phase 1 is determined by the duration of the Phase 1 burst, and 500 kB/second in the Nucleus 24 system. The Nucleus 22
with the number of RF cycles from 18 to 3,00, or 3.6 to 600 uses only the expanded mode to encode frames and has a theo-
. The phase delay determines the interval between the neg- retically maximal total stimulation rate of 5900 Hz. In practice,
ative-going phase and the positive-going phase and can range this theoretical rate is not attainable. For realistic stimulation pa-
from 6 to 50 000 RF cycles, or 1.2 to 10 000 . The polarity of rameters such as pulse duration of 100 , 30 phase
phase 2 is opposite to that of phase 1, but their durations have delay, electrode 1 and 2 bipolar mode with the highest ampli-
to match for balanced charge. The residual inter-pulse-interval tude, the maximum rate is just above 3000 Hz [84]. The Nucleus
(RIPI) or inter-frame gap is inserted to produce the designed 24 system supports both the expanded mode and the embedded
stimulation rate. The number of the RF cycles for the RIPI can mode. For example, with pulse duration of 12 , the Nu-
range from 6 to 1 250 000, equivalent to 1.2 to 250 mS. This cleus 24 (CI24M) system can produce the maximum pulse rate
250 mS upper limit is determined by the requirement of at least of 8500 Hz using the expanded mode and 14 400 Hz using the
a 4 Hz pulse rate to keep the internal circuit powered up. Note embedded mode. To further increase the maximum total stimu-
that critical parameters such as active electrode and mode are lation rate, the electrode mode and pulse duration information
encoded by multiples of eight RF cycles, which allows theoreti- can be set initially with only the electrode number and ampli-
cally a counting error up to 4 RF cycles for reliable transmission. tude information being transmitted on a pulse by pulse basis.
The Expanded mode requires a relatively simply decoder on The Nucleus Freedom system (CI24R and CI24RE) adopts this
the receiver side. However, it has several limitations. First, the high rate mode and can attain a maximum total rate of 32 000
maximal total stimulation rate is low because no stimulation is Hz [46].
generated when parameters such as Sync, Electrode, Mode, Am- Both the Advanced Bionics and Med El systems have used
plitude, and RIPI bursts are being transmitted. Furthermore, the higher RF and multiple current sources to achieve higher
RIPI is not a constant between frames even at a constant stimu- maximum total stimulation rate than the Cochlear system. The
lation rate, because it is affected by other stimulation parameters higher RF leads to higher bit rate in the RF transmission (see
Table II). The multiple current sources allow one-to-one map-

ping between the current source and the electrode, eliminating
the need to transmit the electrode information. The HiRes 90
K device has 16 current sources corresponding to 16 electrodes
and is capable of producing a maximum total stimulation of
83 000 Hz. Sonata has 12 current sources corresponding to
12 electrodes and is capable of producing a maximum total
stimulation rate of 50 700 Hz pulses. Although there has been a
trend for all manufacturers to push for higher stimulation rates,
there is little or no scientific evidence suggesting that higher
rate produces better performance [87]–[89].
D. Power Transmission
To extend battery life, high-power efficiency needs to be
achieved in the RF transmission link. A highly efficient Class-E
power amplifier is typically used in the present cochlear
implants [90], [91]. Properly designed transmitting and the
receiving coils are another critical component to determine the
power efficiency in the RF link. There are many conflicting Fig. 12. Block diagram of the cochlear implant internal unit.
requirements in the RF design. For example, the power trans-
mission efficiency is maximized if the RF system works at its
resonance frequency, i.e., a narrow bandwidth. However, the via back telemetry. The ASIC chip also includes many control
data transmission requires the RF system to have an unlimited units from the clock generated from the RF signal to the com-
bandwidth. Moreover the highly efficiency Class-E power mand decoder. There are several circuits and devices that cannot
amplifier is also highly nonlinear, with its distorted waveform be easily integrated in the ASIC chip, including the voltage reg-
limiting the data transmission rate. Another example is the ulator, the power generator, the coil and RF tuning tank, and the
conflicting requirement in coil size: The large the coil size, the back telemetry data modulator. The following highlights the de-
higher the transmission efficiency; on the other hand, the coil sign, implementation, and function of several important compo-
size has to be limited by the head size and cosmetic considera- nents.
tions. In general, the RF power amplifier and the coils need to
be designed and integrated to take into account of the overall A. Safety Measures
system power consumption, variations in skin thickness, and
forward and backward data transmission [92], [93]. At present, Stimulation safety is a top priority in the receiver and stimu-
the RF link has about 40% transmission efficiency, delivering lator design. Under no circumstance should harmful electrical
20–40 mW power to the internal unit over the skin thickness stimulation such as over stimulation or unbalanced stimulation
from 4 to 10 mm. be delivered to the cochlea. Additional considerations are
needed to prevent erratic functions of the receiver stimulator in
cases of unpredictable events, such as drop of the headpiece,
V. RECEIVER AND STIMULATOR
strong electromagnetic interference, and malfunction of the
The internal unit consists of a receiver and a stimulator, and is external DSP unit. Several levels of safety check are commonly
sometimes referred as the “engine” of a cochlear implant. Fig. implemented in current cochlear implants, including:
12 shows the block diagram of a typical implanted receiver and • Parity check to detect bit error from either RF transmission
stimulator [81], [94]–[96]. The centerpiece is an ASIC (Appli- or data decoding.
cation Specific Integrated Circuit) chip, shown as the dotted box, • Stimulation parameter check to ensure the validity of elec-
which performs critical function of ensuring safe and reliable trode number, mode, amplitude, pulse duration, and inter-
electric stimulation. Inside the ASIC chip, there are a forward pulse gap.
pathway, a backward pathway, and control units. The forward • Maximum charge check to prevent over stimulation, with
pathway usually includes a data decoder that recovers digital the charge density being typically less than 15 to 65
information from the RF signal, error and safety check that en- dependent on the electrode material, size
sures proper decoding, a data distributor that sends the decoded and shape [97], [98].
electric stimulation parameters to the right place (i.e., the pro- • Charge balance check to prevent unbalanced stimulation
grammable current source) at the right time (i.e., by switching and dc stimulation because they generate gases, toxic oxy-
on and off multiplexers). The backward pathway usually in- chlorides, corrosion products, and associated pH changes
cludes a back telemetry voltage sampler that reads the voltage that can cause tissue damage [99].
over a period of time on the recording electrode. The voltage • To prevent dc stimulation, capacitors are serially connected
is then amplified by the programmable gain amplifier (PGA), to the electrodes to block any unbalanced charge being de-
converted into digital form by an analog-to-digital converter livered to electrodes. All modern devices have used this
(ADC), and stored in memory to be sent out to the external unit method.
• To prevent accumulated unbalanced charges, especially way to achieve low-power consumption. Using adaptive com-
with high-rate stimulation, Nucleus cochlear implants pliance voltages is another way to balance the need between the
short all stimulating electrodes between pulses [100]. low-power consumption and the wide impedance range [105],
[106].
B. Current Source
The current source generates a stimulating current according D. Back Telemetry
to the amplitude information from the data decoder. It usually One function of back telemetry is for the external unit to
consists of a digital-to-analog converter (DAC) and current mir- check the status of the internal unit, such as regulated voltage,
rors. The design of an accurate current source is demanding. compliance voltage, register values, and hand shaking status.
In the Nucleus 22 device, the amount of current in the drain This function of back telemetry is critical to ensure that the in-
of a MOSFET is controlled by the voltage difference between ternal circuit works in the proper state and can correctly exe-
the gate and the source of the MOSFET. Because the relation- cute commands sent from the external unit. The other function
ship between the drain and the source is not constant due to of back telemetry is to measure and monitor critical informa-
the process variation of integrated circuit fabrication, a trimmer tion regarding the electrode-tissue interface, including electrode
network was needed to fine tune the reference current in the impedance, electrode field potential, and neural responses [107].
Nucleus 22 device. Recent devices have abandoned this tech- Electrode impedance is derived by measuring the voltage
nique, instead they combine multiple DACs to obtain the desired drop across an electrode for a given current. The current is
amount of current. delivered below the audible threshold, with a value in tens
Another factor is the impedance of a current source. An of or even lower. Extremely low electrode impedance
ideal current source has infinite impedance. In practice, the suggests shortage while extremely high electrode impedance
impedance of a current source should be high relative to the suggests open circuitry. Electrodes with both extreme values
impedance of the load. Several techniques have been developed are typically eliminated in the fitting process (See Section VII).
to design a high impedance current source. For example, Cas- Electrode field potential can be obtained by stimulating one
code current mirrors are commonly used to increase the current electrode while recording the potential in other non-stimulating
source output impedance, but the increased impedance usually electrodes. Electrical field imaging plots the potential distri-
comes at the expense of reduced voltage compliance and power bution as a function of electrode position and can be a useful
dissipation [101]. clinical tool to probe the interference and interaction between
For cochlear implants with multiple current sources, e.g., electrodes [108].
Advanced Bionics HiRes 90 k and Med El Sonata devices, Neural response telemetry (NRT) measures the auditory
a switching network is no longer needed to connect one cur- neural response to electric stimulation. Because the neural
rent source to multiple electrodes. Instead, multiple current response is tiny, usually buried in the artifact of electric stim-
sources are used sequentially or simultaneously, in which both ulation, special techniques are required to remove the artifact.
the N-channel and the P-channel current sources are used to Fig. 13 shows three techniques used to remove the electric
generate positive and negative phases of stimulation [102]. artifacts [109], [110]. First, alternating phase assumes the
It is technically challenging to match between the N-channel neural responses are the same to anodic and cathodic-leading
current source and the P-channel current source to ensure that stimuli so that simple averaging between the two responses
the positive and negative charges are balanced. would cancel the artifacts while preserving the neural response.
However, this assumption is not true and additionally the nerve
C. Low-Power Design may respond to the second phase, limiting the alternating phase
Low-power design and implementation of the internal ASIC utility [111]. Second, forward masking takes advantage of
chip are critical to relaxing the RF transmission efficiency and neural refractoriness in that a probe following a masker will
extending battery life [103], [104]. A recent implantable neural produce artifact but no neural response [109]. Third, template
recording system design only consumes 129 power with subtraction uses statistical properties to characterize electric
the total chip consuming less than 1-mW power [104]. Several artifact and use it to remove the artifact and recover the neural
design principles and methods should be considered to lower response [112], [113]. At present, forward masking is the most
the IC chip power consumption. widely used technique.
For any circuits, assuming that the current is already at the It is technically challenging to design a robust back telemetry
low limit, high frequency and high voltage usually lead to high- system. Although all three back telemetry measurements sample
power consumption. For the receiver and stimulator circuitry in the voltage on the electrode, the sampled voltage varied in a
a cochlear implant, the data detector usually requires high-fre- wide dynamic range. The voltage can range from several volts
quency operation. One of the reasons that ASK modulation is in electrode impedance measurement, mVs in electrical field
preferred to FSK modulation is the relatively simple implemen- imaging and in NRT. A programmable gain amplifier is
tation and low-power consumption of the ASK data detection typically employed to match the sampled voltage signal to the
circuitry, especially with the high-frequency RF signal. accepted range by the analog-to-digital converter. There are two
To handle a wide range of electrode impedance, the current methods to transmit the information from the internal unit to
source in a cochlear implant typically requires high compliance the external unit. One method uses load modulation, as typi-
voltage, thus leading to high-power consumption. Minimizing cally used in the RFID applications, to change the load of the
voltage drop in the devices other than the electrode load is one internal coil so that the external unit can detect small changes
Fig. 13. Three electric artifact removal techniques (three rows). The individual recordings and the derived ECAP responses were obtained in an actual Clarion
HiRes 90 k user [230].
in the amplitude of the RF signal applied to the external coil. 1) Insertion Depth: Recent anatomical and high resolution
The advantage for the RFID method is that only one set of coils imaging studies [115]–[118] have allowed accurate prediction
is needed to transmit both forward and backward signals. The of the relationship between the frequency organization of the
disadvantages are the relatively complicated RF reader in the spiral ganglion and the position of electrode placement in an
external unit and the inability to perform both forward trans- individual subject. To access lower frequency components of
mission and back telemetry simultaneously. The other method the speech spectra (200–1200 Hz), it is necessary to insert the
is to use a second set of coils for only backward signal transmis- electrode array to an approximate depth of 1.5 cochlear turns
sion [114]. The advantage for the second method is the ability or 540 measured from the round window. Recent studies have
to perform forward and backward transmission simultaneously shown that in most cases the current generation of electrodes can
and independently, but the disadvantage is the increased size due be inserted to a depth of less than 400 and that deeper insertion
to the second set of coils and additional hardware. results in higher rates of intracochlear damage and misplaced
electrodes [119], [120]. Thus, significant advances in electrode
VI. ELECTRODE ARRAYS design will be required to reliably achieve optimum insertion
The electrode array is the direct interfaces between the elec- depth with minimal trauma.
trical output of the speech processor and the auditory neural 2) Coupling Efficiency: Reducing the electrode-to-nerve
tissue. In the last three decades, these electrode arrays have distance decreases power consumption and interaction between
evolved from single channel to multiple channels with 12 to 22 channels. Early attempts to reduce this distance were made by
active contacts, from an in situ position near the lateral wall of molding electrodes to exactly match the volume of the scala
the scala tympani to a position closer to the modiolus, and from tympani. Because of individual anatomical and dimensional
larger molded silicone elastomer “carriers” to smaller profiles. variation this strategy was not successful. Shortly thereafter,
These changes are summarized here and reflect improved under- electrodes were designed and built with a spiral shape to hold
standing of cochlear anatomy and electrophysiology and their the array in a position closer to the modiolus. These electrodes
relationship to cochlear implant performance. were first applied in larger clinical trials by Advanced Bionics
(Clarion™) and later used in conjunction with a separate
A. Design Goals for Intracochlear Electrodes elastomer positioner to further reduce the distance from the
Three goals have guided the development of contemporary array to the spiral ganglion. In the late 1990s Cochlear Corpo-
cochlear implant electrodes. The first goal is to insert the elec- ration, Advanced Bionics and Med-El all produced electrodes
trode array more deeply into the scala tympani to better match designed to be located near the modiolus and termed them as
the assigned frequency band of electrical stimulation with the either perimodior or modiolus “hugging” electrodes.
existing tonotopic organization of the cochlea and the auditory 3) Insertion Trauma: Intracochlear damage occurs when in-
nerve. The second goal is to improve overall coupling efficiency sertion forces at any point on an electrode exceed the strength of
between the electrode and the nerve. The third goal is to reduce the tissue resisting that force. In many cases, this damage results
the incidence and severity of insertion associated trauma and in decreased coupling efficiency and inconsistent channel-to-
potential infection. channel performance. Analysis of the forces that affect the oc-
TABLE III
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR CURRENTLY AVAILABLE CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL COCHLEAR IMPLANT DEVICES FROM THE THREE MAJOR COCHLEAR
IMPLANT MANUFACTURERS
currence of trauma and the angle at which an electrode con- is a reference electrode used for either monopolar cochlear
tacts tissue have identified two primary mechanisms of injury stimulation or measurement of intracochlear action potentials
[121]–[126]. First, damage most frequently occurs as a straight resulting from electrical stimulation. PtIr alloy wire leads are
electrode, or curved electrode held on a stylet, contacts the outer currently used for all devices with helical winding or fine zig
wall of the scala tympani as it spirals away from the round zag patterns formed into each lead to increase flexibility and
window or cochleostomy through which the electrode was in- minimize the rate of failure from repeated bending.
serted. Second, insertion injury occurs when an electrode is in- 1) Standard Arrays: The Advanced Bionics Helix™ and
serted beyond the depth at which it fully occupies the volume Cochlear Contour Advance™ arrays are spiral shaped to match
of the scala tympani [127]. Techniques to reduce the incidence the diameter of the modiolus when fully inserted. Both devices
and severity of trauma will be discussed. are mounted on a straight stylet to permit initial insertion to the
first cochlear turn then are advanced off of the stylet to complete
B. Current Intracochlear Electrodes the insertion. The premolded spiral shape of the Contour and
Table III details specific design parameters for currently Helix devices also ensures that the electrode contacts mounted
available clinical cochlear implant devices from three major on the inner radius of the electrode will be facing the spiral
manufacturers. Fig. 14 illustrates three commonly applied ganglion upon full insertion.
cochlear implants, the Med-El Combi 40+™, Advanced In contrast, the HiFocus 1J and Med-El Combi arrays follow
Bionics Helix™ and Cochlear Contour™. Each of these a path close to the lateral wall during implantation. When fully
devices is similar in construction with stimulating contacts inserted in temporal bones the HiFocus 1J electrode was posi-
fabricated from platinum–iridium (PtIr) alloy foil held on a tioned with a mean distance of 1.23 mm (electrode ) from
silicone elastomer carrier. The connecting cable and lead wires the modiolus [120]. Although there have been no quantitative
in all cochlear implants are subject to breakage, particularly in studies of the Combi array published to date it is reasonable
active children. In addition, these wires dominate the mechan- to assume that the position of this electrode would be similar
ical properties of the electrode array and the increased stiffness and published images of this electrode in place confirm their lo-
they impart may be a cause of increased trauma. Fig. 15 illus- cation near the spiral ligament. This position compares with a
trates the crinkled wires used to reduce stiffness and increase mean in situ distance from the electrode to the modiolus of 0.16
reliability in the Med-El Combi 40+™ (Panel A) and Advanced mm (electrode ) for the earlier HiFocus II electrode array
Bionics Helix™ (Panel B) electrodes. Note that the wires in the with positioner [128], 0.65 mm (electrode ) for the Hi-
Helix™ array are stacked along the inner radius of the spiral Focus Helix array [120] and 0.33 mm for the Cochlear
array to further reduce stiffness in the horizontal plane of the Contour electrode [128]. Although the straighter electrodes are
spiral and to increase stiffness in the vertical plane. The channel located laterally, it should be noted that the location of the per-
(arrow, B.) in the center of the Helix™ array is premolded imodiolar arrays is highly variable and that this variability may
to accept a wire stylet used to straighten the electrode during affect threshold and channel interaction in highly idiosyncratic
insertion. Panel C illustrates helical winding used to increase ways along the length of an array in an individual subject and
reliability in the cable section connecting the implanted stimu- across subjects throughout the patient population.
lator and the electrode array in the Advanced Bionics Helix™ 2) Electrodes for Combined Electrical Acoustic Stimula-
and 1J devices. The large cylindrical platinum iridium contact tion (EAS): As cochlear implant performance has steadily
Fig. 15. Panel A: Med-El Combi 40+™; Panel B: Advanced Bionics Helix™ ;
and Panel C: helical winding connecting the implanted stimulator and the elec-
trode array in the Advanced Bionics Helix™ and 1J devices.
in regular cochlear implants. Temporal bone studies using

these shortened electrodes indicate that they can be introduced
without damage and human trials have shown that subjects
implanted with these electrodes experience a smaller average
increase in acoustic threshold than is seen with full length
electrodes in similar subject populations [134]–[137].
It is clear that a growing number of subjects with residual
hearing will receive cochlear implants in the future. Whether
acoustic information is used from the implanted ear or the
contralateral ear, it will be increasingly important to minimize
intracochlear damage in these subjects in which we presume
Fig. 14. Top: Med-El Combi 40+™’ Middle: Advanced Bionics Helix™ ; that nerve survival is better than in subjects with greater hearing
Bottom: Cochlear Contour™ electrode arrays. loss and in which we hope to maintain acoustic function. Thus,
the continued development of strategies to reduce insertion
related trauma should be a high priority for manufacturers. With
improved, the implantation of subjects with significant levels the improvements outlined above, it appears that current stan-
of residual hearing has increased dramatically [129]–[131]. For dard length devices are close to meeting the goal of atraumatic
patients with high-frequency hearing loss, it seems appropriate insertion with a minimal increase in the acoustic threshold. Be-
and possible to stimulate the basal cochlea electrically while cause most insertion trauma begins at or near the first cochlear
maintaining acoustic sensitivity in the apical, low frequency, return, there is no logical reason that an electrode shortened to
gion of the cochlea. Several studies have shown that this group 16 –24 mm inserted to a depth of 250 – 300 should be less
of subjects receives increased benefit from basal only electric traumatic than a full length electrode with the same mechanical
stimulation combined with amplified acoustic stimulation in properties. Ideally, an electrode with a pre-molded spiral shape,
the same ear, particularly in the presence of noise [129], [132], such as the Cochlear Contour™ or Advanced Bionics Helix™,
[133]. which is inserted using the AOS technique, will have no contact
Although recent temporal bone studies report that stan- with the spiral ligament or basilar membrane. Such a “free
dard length arrays from each of the major cochlear implant floating” insertion would not only be accomplished without
manufacturers can be inserted without significant trauma to damage but would also minimize changes in the mechanical
approximately 400 , several shortened electrode arrays (6 to properties of the basilar membrane. Additionally, the majority
24 mm in length) have been developed to minimize the prob- of patients with severe high-frequency hearing loss will even-
ability of injury in the basal cochlea which would disrupt the tually lose lower frequency hearing as well. Although this may
transmission of acoustic energy along the basilar membrane in be a very gradual process, the additional cost and medical risk
the cochlea. To maximize the flexibility in programming, most associated with re-implanting these subjects with a full length
of these EAS electrodes retain the same number of stimulating cochlear implant must be considered and weighed against the
contacts found in the corresponding standard length electrodes perceived benefits of a shorter EAS electrode in the short term.
Fig. 16. To define the initial site and extent of damage to each structure within the cochlea, we dissected and analyzed 13 epoxy embedded temporal bones with
traumatic insertions of the Cochlear Contour array. The bars labeled SL, BM, OSL, and RM represent the region of injury to the spiral ligament, basilar membrane,
osseous spiral lamina and Reissner’s membrane respectively. The location of each of these structures is shown in the inset cross section of the scala tympani. The
outlined box between 180 and 270 indicates the region where the electrode perforated the basilar partition. The distance over which the electrode perforated the
partition ranged from 7 to 185 with a mean distance of 64.7. Beyond this perforation the electrode remained in either the scala tympani or scala vestibuli with
minimal damage. SpG = Spiral Ganglion, ST = Scala Tympani, SV = Scala Vestibuli.
C. Insertion Trauma, Depth and Electrode Design anecdotally remarked that repeated cycles of implanting and dis-
secting temporal bones in the laboratory is extremely beneficial
Temporal bone studies of cochlear implant electrodes devel- to the development of their surgical expertise in this special-
oped in the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated that severe insertion ized area. Unfortunately, this level of feedback is impossible for
related trauma was prevalent with these first generation elec- most surgeons to achieve even as they gain substantial experi-
trodes [127], [138]–[147]. In contrast, recent reports with stan- ence with cochlear implants. Thus, the small group of research
dard length electrodes indicate that the incidence of observed oriented surgeons that are currently conducting temporal bone
trauma has been significantly reduced when devices are inserted studies may become less and less well suited to evaluate the de-
to an average depth of approximately 400 [119], [120], [124], velopment and safety of future cochlear implant electrodes that
[134], [147], [148]. As a whole, these reports give an optimistic will be implanted by surgeons without those insights.
view that improved design of electrode arrays may well de- To better understand the mechanics of intracochlear trauma
crease the frequency and severity of injury. However, we believe and where it occurs we identified the initiation and extent of
that there are still significant challenges to be overcome before each injury site in a set of 13 temporal bones with severe trauma.
these electrode arrays can be reliably inserted to optimum depth These specimens were selected from a series of temporal bones
without damage. First, these studies report that insertions deeper implanted with Cochlear Contour™ electrodes evaluated at
than 400 (measured from the round window) are likely to pro- UCSF. Fig. 16 illustrates the region of damage in each cochlear
duce severe damage including fracture of the OSL and tearing structure in this series of specimens. As predicted, initial
of the basilar membrane or its connection to the spiral ligament. damage in these specimens occurred at or near the first site
Optimum placement of these electrodes will require an addi- of contact with the lateral wall of the ST. In most cases this
tional 135 , or more, of insertion depth to match stimulation injury continued for a distance of less than 90 after which the
location with the tonotopic organization of the adjacent spiral electrode was located in either the ST or scala vestibuli with
ganglion. We anticipate that the design of electrodes capable of minimal associated trauma. It is clear that if damage resulting
this deeper insertion will require significant invention. Second, from this initial high angle contact of the electrode tip with
these recent temporal bone studies were conducted by experi- the lateral wall can be avoided the incidence of injury will be
enced cochlear implant surgeons with extensive practice in the minimized.
analysis of insertion trauma. Although we have not seen a corre- Several techniques have been used to minimize this mode of
lation between the incidence of trauma observed and a surgeon’s trauma including curving the electrode tip to reduce the initial
clinical cochlear implant experience, numerous surgeons have angle of contact, use of the advance off stylet (AOS) method
spiral ganglion and those with greatly degenerated spiral gan-

glion resulting from injury should have higher thresholds and
greater channel interaction than subjects with electrodes in a
perimodiolar position adjacent to less damaged neurons [140],
[151]–[155]. In a similar tradeoff the current Med-El Combi
40+ electrode may be located nearer lower frequency regions
Fig. 17. Images illustrating the intended insertion path of a pre-molded spiral of the spiral ganglion when it is deeply inserted. However,
electrode using the AOS technique. A Cochlear Contour electrode is shown as trauma was observed at deeper levels in the cochlea ( )
an example. The electrode array loaded on a straight stylet is shown in image in 10 of 21 (47.6%) temporal bones implanted with the Med-El
(A) prior to advancing the array. As the stylet is held in position, the electrode
is gently pushed off of the stylet and resumes its pre-molded shape (B)–(D). Combi 40+™ and Flex Soft™ electrodes [119]. It is not clear
In this ideal case there is no contact with the lateral wall of the scala tympani. whether this trauma was the result of the electrode tip being
One possible mode of damage with this technique occurs if the electrode and too large to fit in the volume of the ST in these deepest inser-
stylet are advanced too far into the ST prior to advancing the array. In this case
the straight stylet and electrode will contact the outer wall resulting in trauma tions or if another mechanism of damage is responsible with
similar to that of earlier straight electrodes. Studies at UCSF have shown that these particular electrode designs. Recent studies evaluated the
the distance from the RW to the first turn of the cochlea varies by more than relative importance of insertion depth, electrode placement and
50% and that the marker molded in the contour array may be well outside the
cochleostomy when this contact and damage occurs in many subjects. trauma in clinical subjects and correlated these measures with
speech recognition scores. The results indicate that trauma, as
measured by the number of electrode contacts located in the
to further reduce contact with the outer wall of the ST, changes scala vestibuli, has a strongly negative affect on performance
in the shape and stiffness of the electrode tip and mechanical even in subjects with very deeply inserted arrays [156], [157].
control of the vertical and horizontal stiffness of the electrode
to reduce upward bending [121], [124], [134], [147]–[149]. Fig. D. Future Intracochlear Electrode Arrays
17 illustrates the intended insertion path of a pre-molded spiral Development of cochlear implant electrodes will continue
electrode using the AOS technique. with improvements in safety, larger numbers of functional chan-
Two observations from current temporal bone studies are nels (either physical or virtual), deeper insertion and decreased
highly relevant to clinical practice. First, although manufac- manufacturing cost. In current devices several mechanical char-
turers intend that electrodes will be inserted only until initial acteristics appear to reduce the incidence of insertion trauma.
resistance is felt by the surgeon, data from temporal bone These factors include the relationship of vertical stiffness to hor-
studies and surgeon descriptions indicate that all electrodes izontal stiffness in the array, the shape and stiffness of the elec-
are most often implanted to their full depth. In our trials at trode tip and the overall shape and size of the array [121], [124],
UCSF surgeons have observed little resistance to insertion and [137]. Each of these factors interacts in different ways with indi-
were confident that the electrodes were implanted with little vidual surgical techniques and surgical instrumentation. For this
or no trauma. Particularly in cases with the Advanced Bionics reason, we feel that it will be necessary for manufacturers to ap-
HiFocus™ electrode with positioner, subsequent dimensional proach the development of future electrodes with a very broad
analysis [124], [127] and temporal bone evaluations indicate view that includes a critical examination of current electrodes,
that many, or most, of these insertions exceeded the depth at anatomy of the ST, the surgical approach, surgical instrumenta-
which the electrode and positioner could be located without tion and device specific training for surgeons. We envision that
trauma. This disparity indicates that it is very difficult to sense advances in imaging will allow both improved speech processor
the level of resistance that signals the initiation of injury with fitting by documenting the unique position of each electrode
a large tapered electrode carrier. Further, it is probable that within the cochlea and increased safety by giving the surgeon
sensation may be reduced or masked by the use of insertion detailed feedback after each surgery [158]–[160]. With the ap-
tools. Due to concerns that the two part HiFocus™ electrode plication of successful design features from current electrodes
and positioner might contribute to the incidence of meningitis and improved surgical training and instrumentation, it appears
this system was voluntarily removed from the market in 2002 that relatively modest modifications of the current designs will
[150]. Looking toward future electrode designs it will be ensure routine atraumatic electrode insertion to a depth of up to
necessary to prevent this mechanism of trauma by insuring 400 .
that perception of resistance by the surgeon is not required for At present, there is a large variation in distance from the
injury free insertion. array to the modiolus in current perimodiolar designs [120],
Second, high levels of performance have been seen in [161]. Refinement will be needed to consistently locate stimu-
subjects using all models of electrodes that were presumably lating contacts close to the spiral ganglion. Because straighter
traumatic in many cases. This dilemma highlights the tradeoffs electrodes are located against the spiral ligament, they appear
between possible traumatic insertion and presumed optimum to have less variable placement. This variability confounds
electrode position near the modiolus. As an example, Balkany comparison and analysis of performance between different
[128] documented that the mean distance from the modiolus to perimodiolar designs and between perimodiolar electrodes and
the electrode surface was significantly less for the HiFocus™ laterally located electrodes as a group.
system than for other clinical electrodes. A large body of an- Over the longer term advances in materials technology will
imal based electrophysiology research and computer modeling be incorporated into electrode array design. Low cost thin film
indicates that subjects with electrodes located farther from the based electrodes were first proposed in the early 1980s [162],
[163], however, delamination and failure in both the insulation

and conductive layers have prevented these electrodes from pro-
gressing to clinical trial.
One of the proposed advantages of thin film electrodes
has been larger numbers of contact sites. Another approach
to achieving greater spectral resolution with a CI is to use
current focusing, or “steering,” to generate percepts between
two physical electrode contacts. This approach has been docu-
mented in animals [164] and human subjects [165]–[167] and
is applied clinically in the Advanced Bionic HiRes120 signal
processing algorithm. Optimization of electrode site spacing
and configuration for virtual channel stimulation will depend
on further basic research and testing of clinical subjects.
Additional features may be added to cochlear implant elec-
trodes to further increase subject performance. This may in-
clude sensors to guide the insertion process by measuring the
distance from the sensor to the margin of the surrounding ST
or by measuring pressure when the electrode contacts a surface
of the cochlea. To enable the surgeon to respond to this feed-
back, the tip of a future electrode might also be steered by flu- Fig. 18. A section of nucleus freedom custom sound fitting program.
idic channels or mechanical controls. Anti-inflammatory or neu-
rotrophic agents might also be administered via fine channels in
a cochlear implant electrode to support neural regeneration or 20 min to 2 h, depending on the device complexity, patient con-
attract growth of dendrites to specific stimulating contact sites. dition, and audiologists’ skill levels.
At present, efficient, integrated, and objective fitting needs to
be developed. Significant progress has been made in efficient
VII. FITTING PROGRAM fitting of cochlear implants, includes measuring only the com-
Because each patient is unique, the cochlear implant has to fortable loudness level (Clarion), streamlining the mapping by
be customized to meet his or her conditions and needs. A fit- interpolating the T and C levels in a subset of the electrodes
ting program is used to interface between a PC and the ex- [168], and optimizing the map by genetic algorithms [169]. Be-
ternal speech processor. The interface provides two-way com- cause structured training has been shown to benefit cochlear im-
munication during fitting sessions, which is generally conducted plant performance [170], a future fitting system may be inte-
one month after surgery and adjusted annually or as necessary. grated with a structured training system.
The fitting program collects critical patient-specific information While electrode impedance has long been used to determine
from patient preference of speech processing strategies to the a short or open connection, other objective measures are slowly
setting of threshold and comfortable loudness values on all elec- moving into cochlear implant fitting. A promising measure is
trodes. Once these critical electric stimulation parameters are the electrical compound action potential or ECAP that can be
set, the fitting program stores the information as a “map” on the measured by the latest device from all three manufacturers.
PC, which is then downloaded to the memory (usually EPROM) The ECAP threshold is typically between the behaviorally
of the speech processor. measured T and C levels, and can be used to create a map
Fig. 18 shows a section of the fitting program interface used in without any subjective responses from the patient. Such objec-
the Nucleus Freedom device, called Custom Sound. The -axis tively created maps are especially valuable to the increasing
represents the clinical units for electric currents whereas the pediatric implant populations as well as those who cannot give
-axis represents the number of electrodes. The electrodes can accurate behavioral responses, but their speech performance is
be flagged (electrode 12 and 3 in this case), hence not used, be- still sub-optimal compared with the behaviorally created maps
cause they are malfunctioning electrically, e.g., short or open [171]–[173]. Another measure under investigation for objective
circuitry, or cause unpleasant or unwanted problems such as mapping is acoustic reflex, which contracts the middle ear
dizziness or other facial nerve stimulation. To create the map, on muscle to attenuate a loud sound, but its clinical acceptance
all other useful electrodes, both the lowest current level inducing appears to be at least several years away [174], [175]. Finally,
threshold (T level) and the highest level inducing comfortable high resolution imaging data before and after surgery will likely
loudness (C level) are typically measured and recorded, with be integrated in the fitting system to only predict performance
the difference being the dynamic range (DR). These electrical but also optimize the frequency map between the electrodes
parameters usually change with different processing strategies and the residual nerve [176], [177].
and electrode configurations, and sometimes may change with
time and experience, thus requiring separate measurements and VIII. SYSTEM INTEGRATION
monitoring. Four to nine different maps can be downloaded To provide safe, reliable and useful electric hearing, the
to the speech processor dependent upon the manufacturer (See cochlear implant imposes extreme physical, power, environ-
Table I). The fitting process can be time consuming, lasting from mental and handling constraints on both system design and
system integration. First, the implant must be safe, causing than 10%, thus eliminating the cumbersome device-specific
no harm, chronic pain or discomfort to the people who use it. calibration and patient-specific lookup table in the Nucleus 24
Second, the implant must be reliable, because children who devices.
receive cochlear implants will depend on them to develop their
speech and communication skills and will use their devices B. Cochlear Implant and Bacterial Meningitis
for a significant portion of their life before it is replaced if In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received a
at all. This imposes a serious need to design the product to growing number of reports of bacterial meningitis in cochlear
withstand the implant environment for up to, if not beyond, 30 implant recipients. Although these cases occurred in subjects
years. Third, for the implant to reside safely and unobtrusively implanted with devices produced by all the major manufacturers
on the patient’s head, severe restrictions are imposed in the the frequency of infection was clearly greatest in the device
physical size and shape of the package available to house with a separate elastomer positioner, the HiFocus™ II system.
electronics. Fourth, the implant is powered by batteries so At this time, the HiFocus™ II was withdrawn from the market
that a low-power consumption design is vital. Furthermore, voluntarily and reintroduced a short time later without the at-
the implant should be able to handle not only a very harsh tached positioner. Cohen and colleagues [180] found that the
operating environment inside the human body for a long time, number of meningitis cases was actually greater than previously
but also extreme physical abuse such as mechanical impact in thought and confirmed that devices from all manufacturers were
case of a fall or crash. The implant users want to participate associated with these infections. Concurrently, the FDA issued
in the normal activities of daily living unshackled by the need an advisory notice that all children receiving cochlear implants
to use and protect an overly delicate prosthesis. Finally, the should also be vaccinated against streptococcus pneumoniae
implant must be designed in close collaboration with surgeons and other species common to the middle ear space [181], [182].
and patients to accommodate a broad range of anatomical From a device design perspective, it appears that two factors
variations and to ensure reliable, effective and satisfactory may contribute to the incidence of meningitis. First, a two-part
outcomes. To illustrate the importance of system integration, electrode might allow increased bacterial biofilm formation be-
the following two sections illustrate some of the problems that tween the individual components of the device, which would
occurred in earlier generations of the cochlear implants and be resistant to normal immune response. This mechanism could
had led to reduced overall system performance, cumbersome also occur in a single part device with enclosed fluid channels
administrative overhead, and increased risk to the patients. or a stylet channel that opened into the ST due to damage. The
second mechanism that may play a role in infection is intra-
cochlear trauma. A severe fracture of the osseous spiral lamina
A. Design and Implementation Issues
or damage to the inner surface of the ST provides a direct path
One example is the setting of input dynamic range in the for bacteria to enter the central nervous system via the internal
speech processor. In the early cochlear implant systems (e.g., auditory meatus [183]. Future electrode arrays should be de-
[59]), the input dynamic range was set to be around 30 dB be- signed with these two factors in mind.
cause of the beliefs that speech dynamic range is also about 30
C. Safety Considerations
dB [178] and that the 30 dB range better matches the 10–20-dB
electric dynamic range. Detailed acoustic analysis and cochlear Absolute product safety is almost impossible to demonstrate
implant speech evaluation have shown that greater than 30-dB in human implant applications, however, safety is a very im-
input dynamic ranges are needed for better performance [50], portant consideration in the design of any neural prosthetic de-
leading to a setting of the 50–60-dB input dynamic range in cur- vice. Safety should occupy a high priority in any set of product
rent cochlear implants. design requirements. The safety of an implantable neural pros-
The second example is related to accuracy of current sources. thetic device can be segmented in to four categories: 1) materials
In the first-generation Clarion device [95], the current source and their biocompatibility and toxicity; 2) sterilization to elim-
had little head room, resulting in saturating response at rel- inate infection; 3) mechanical design with its potential to cause
atively low current values. This nonlinear saturation likely structural tissue damage; and 4) energy exposure limits and the
contributed to unusually wide electric dynamic range and low resulting tissue and neural damage. Safety problems related to
speech performance in some cochlear implant users [50] and each of these categories can have both short and long term con-
possibly also produces artificially high perceptual thresholds of sequences.
electric vision when the Clarion cochlear implant was adopted 1) Biocompatibility: is the property of a material being bio-
by Second Sight for its retinal implants [179]. A different logically compatible by not producing a toxic, injurious, or im-
current source problem also created an administrative burden munological response in living tissue. The materials used to fab-
in the Nucleus 22 implant users. Because of large variability in ricate implantable system components need to be compatible
the chip fabrication process, the current source in each Nucleus with the tissue and structures in the vicinity of the device and
22 device produced different values ( ) when the same need to be appropriately selected for their specific use.
current amplitude was specified. The manufacturer had to cali- There is a significant history of implantable materials demon-
brate each individual device and create a patient-specific lookup strating the successful biocompatibility in implantable applica-
table for fitting and research purposes [62]. The manufacturer tions. The most direct approach to selecting materials to achieve
has been able to reduce the current source variability to less biocompatibility in system design would be to use materials that
TABLE IV final result is that the sterile product reaches the customer. Sev-
LIST OF BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS eral publications are available that deal with sterilization re-
quirements for implanted devices. Ethylene oxide (EtO) is fre-
quently used to sterilize cochlear implants and has been stan-
dardized (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 11135: “Sterilization of medical
devices. Validation and routine control of ethylene oxide steril-
ization”; ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993–7: “Biological evaluation of
medical devices part 7, ethylene oxide residuals”). Other accept-
able sterilization methods are available for cochlear implants. In
fact, there are situations where a device may be exposed to mul-
tiple sterilization processes. These are covered by multiple stan-
dards and documents available from the FDA and other sources
[186]. It is suggested that the designer review these standards
have established acceptable biocompatible safety records in im- before design requirements are finalized.
planted applications. By selecting materials that already meet Even though the material used for a specific design may be
an FDA recognized biocompatibility standard you can avoid the sterilized, it must also be designed and manufactured to tolerate
need for animal testing and may be able to submit a declaration the process that will be used to achieve sterilization. Steril-
of conformity in place of performance data [184]. In addition to ization processes often expose materials to high temperatures
saving time and expense, declaration of conformity allows de- and harsh chemicals. The EtO sterilization process applies
sign energy and focus to be placed elsewhere. Materials selec- both high temperatures and a chemical gas to the components
tions would then be based on factors related to their mechanical to achieve sterilization. Materials exposed to the EtO process
properties, electrical properties and abilities to achieve hermetic must be able to withstand exposure to both of these condi-
isolation. Table IV presents a partial list of frequently used bio- tions without damage. Additionally, the structure of implanted
compatible materials in cochlear implants. components and housing must be designed to avoid pockets,
These materials are currently used in cochlear implants that crevices or other small spaces in the external surfaces where
have received FDA approvals. Implanted devices fabricated bacteria can collect, making it more difficult if not impossible
with these materials have demonstrated significant histories of for the sterilization processes to be effective.
safe and effective performance in the field. While the materials Device testing to assess the effectiveness of the selected ster-
listed above are considered to be biocompatible, caution must ilization process shall be conducted and documented before reg-
be exercised in their specific use. For example, when selecting ulatory approval is granted. Failure to pass this test is a se-
materials for the design of electrodes used to deliver electrical rious problem and frequently occurs late in the design process.
stimulation, it has been found that platinum-iridium electrodes This problem would cause a significant delay in the delivery
are safer and less damaging to neural tissue then titanium schedule. It is suggested that the implant designer conduct an
electrodes used at the same stimulation exposure levels [185]. early sterilization test on the package to ensure it is effective
Therefore, even though titanium is biocompatible, its use and a later test on the completed product to ensure that expo-
should be limited to specific applications that do not include sure to the sterilization process does not harm the product.
delivering electrical stimulation to neural tissue. The materials 3) Mechanical Safety: Tissue trauma is frequently the results
most commonly used for this application in cochlear implants of mechanical stress or chronic force applied to tissue by the
are platinum-iridium alloys. A metal alloy with a ratio of 90% implantable package and electrode. Tissue trauma can also be
platinum to 10% iridium is a common selection and offers induced by surgeries that result from a design that is difficult
good electrical conductivity, good mechanical strength and to put in place and stabilize. Relative to the package, smaller
ductility properties that have a reasonable resistance to fatigue is generally better, but this is not the only consideration. The
failure. Changing these ratios can achieve different material cochlear implant package is normally placed behind the pinna
properties while maintaining the biocompatibility of the final of the ear embedded in bonny tissue around and adjacent to the
combination of materials. Caution should always be exercised mastoid cavity. A very small package that cannot be stabilized
and reviewed with experts and regulatory authorities before any will probably cause more tissue damage then a well-designed
final decisions are made. package that can be stabilized in an effective bone bed. A new
Fabricating system components from biocompatible mate- device implanted in a healthy subject will probably be encapsu-
rials frequently requires the use of nonbiocompatible and toxic lated in tissue that will stabilize the device after several weeks;
materials. While these other materials are usually removed the design goal is to provide stabilization until this encapsula-
during the manufacturing process caution needs to be exer- tion occurs. The top surface of the package needs to be shaped
cised to ensure there are no residual amounts left on the final to reduce internal tissue trauma that could result in long term
component. Manufacturing processes must be designed and problems. Softly rounded corners and soft silicone rubber en-
validated to ensure the end result is a component that contains capsulation helps prevent these problems. There have been cases
only biocompatible materials. of severe tissue necrosis reported with some implants and this
2) Sterilization: A serious, but often overlooked and unusually results in an explant and a subsequent re implant with
derestimated need for the design and manufacturing of an im- a different device or a different placement method. Designers
plantable device is ensuring it can be sterilized and that the need to work carefully with skilled surgeons to ensure the final
design meets the surgical needs and minimizes the potential for
chronic tissue trauma.
4) Energy Exposure: must be constrained to safe levels in
implanted products. The type of energy that is encountered in
implants includes, electricity, heat, light and sound. The bio-ef-
fects of light and sound energy sources, particularly the interac-
tion between tissue and laser or ultrasonic sound, are well doc-
umented. This section focuses on electrical and heat energy ex-
posures that are most relevant to cochlear implants.
Stimulation of the cochlea requires exposure to adequate
amounts of electrical energy to achieve sufficient neural recruit-
ment to achieve loudness. Increasing requirements to improve
tonotopic selectivity is forcing a reduction in contact surface
area along with a higher density electrode pitch. These trends
are placing additional burdens on keeping electrical energy Fig. 19. Interaction of human factors that results in either safe and effective
below safe exposure levels. The standard parameter used to use, or unsafe or ineffective use [adapted from [188]].
quantify energy delivery for neural activation is charge density.
The maximum total charge, charge density and its delivery must
be specified for safe operation of the stimulator. Most modern and effective device use or unsafe or ineffective use. The FDA
cochlear implants use current source stimulation drivers. The has adopted a human factors engineering approach to identify
charge is the product of current and time of the signal applied to and isolate these factors and to address and manage their risks
the contact. Driver currents in cochlear implants range from a [188]. Fig. 19 shows the dynamic interactions among the de-
few micro-amps to as high as two milliamps. Electrical contacts vice, its user and environment and their contributions to the safe
vary in range from 0.12 up to over 1.5 . Typically the vs. unsafe and effective vs. ineffective usage. The goal of the
safe charge density limit is less than 15 to 65 FDA guideline is to minimize use-related hazards, assure that
although higher values have been considered safe in electric intended users are able to use medical devices safely and effec-
stimulation of the nerve tissue [97], [98]. tively throughout the product life cycle, and to facilitate review
External devices that maintain surface contact with the skin of new device submissions and design control documentation.
should not have chronic temperatures that exceed 41 degrees Verification and validation are needed to ensure that the system
centigrade, although recent amendments to IEC standards have specifications be met and the device be safely used under simu-
raised the chronic temperature to 43 . It is suggested that a lated or actual environments.
careful review of this standard be conducted during the design
process. This criteria allows considerable rise if the environ- IX. SYSTEM EVALUATION
mental temperature is low, but may be difficult to achieve in The cochlear implant has to be judged and accepted by
very hot climates. The temperature rise of implanted electronics its user. Detailed psychophysical, speech, music, language,
must be minimized to safe levels. Implanted devices must not and cognitive performance has been systematically measured
have surface temperatures that exceed 39 centigrade under any and evaluated. Cost-utility benefits have also been analyzed
condition in vivo. The implant environment must be considered and demonstrated, resulting in complete or partial coverage
during design and testing to ensure the final device meets re- of cochlear implantation by major insurance companies and
quirements [187]. For example, implanting a device in tissue Medicare in the US [189]. Here basic psychophysical perfor-
increases its thermal mass and will aid in limiting the rise in mance and challenges under complex listening situations are
temperature. Different tissue groups and locations in the body highlighted to illustrate both the limitation of current cochlear
will have different influences on rises in temperature. Highly implant design and the opportunity for the future.
perfused tissue will have a more pronounced affect on temper- Basic psychophysical performance helps us understand what
ature than poorly perfused tissue. It is important to test the final the cochlear implant limitations are and how to compensate
design in an effective tissue environment. One approach is to for these limitations. For example, the psychophysical perfor-
measure the temperature rise while the device is implanted in mance may be limited by the design, the hardware, the elec-
the tissue of a live animal with tissue similar to the final human trode-tissue interface, or the brain. Fig. 20 shows cochlear im-
implant subjects. The temperature rise is a result of normal op- plant performance in loudness, pitch, tuning, and temporal pro-
eration but is probably increased more as a result of exposures cessing. Different from a power function in normal loudness
to outside energy sources such as MRI unless the device con- growth and a wide 100–120 dB dynamic range, cochlear im-
tains a rechargeable battery. Analytical treatment of this topic plant users typically have an exponential loudness growth func-
is difficult and early in vivo modeling and testing is suggested. tion and a much narrower 10–20 dB dynamic range. The al-
tered loudness growth and the reduced dynamic range are to
large extent due to the damaged cochlea [190] and can be com-
D. Risk Management
pensated effectively by the amplitude compression circuitry in
It is critical to recognize the interactions of the device, the the speech processor. The temporal pitch is limited to 300–500
user, and the environment and their contributions to the safe Hz in a typical cochlear implant user, whereas pitch above this
vocoders that extract temporal envelopes from a number of spec-

tral bands and use them to amplitude-modulate noise-band or
sinusoidal carriers [4], [5]. The acoustic simulation has cap-
tured the essence of a cochlear implant from the signal pro-
cessing point of view but is severely limited by a lack of incor-
poration of the highly distorted electrode-to-neuron interface.
This limitation produces several problems associated with the
acoustic simulation of a cochlear implant. One problem is that
the acoustic simulation is likely to predict the performance by
the best cochlear implant users, therefore cannot account for the
large individual variability among the cochlear implant users.
The other problem is that the acoustic simulation cannot sim-
ulate the qualitative aspects of a cochlear implant. As cochlear
implant patients with almost normal hearing on the contralateral
side as well as detailed physiological data become available, re-
alistic acoustic simulations are being developed to overcome not
only the present simulation limitations but also provide an ac-
curate account of the complicated interactions between electric
stimulation and the nervous system.
Despite the high-level performance, significant difficulty still
Fig. 20. Basic psychophysical performance in cochlear implants: (A) Loud- remains, even for today’s star cochlear implant users. Fig. 21
ness growth as a function of current level from three studies [67]; (B) Pitch
estimate as a function of electric stimulation rate (x-axis) and place (symbols) highlights three challenges of aural and oral communication in
[51]; (C) Spatial tuning curves in a cochlear implant user (squares superimposed the present cochlear implant users. Panel A shows that a normal-
with the two shallow lines) and a normal-hearing listener (steep lines without hearing listener requires SNR to achieve 50% correct
symbols) [195]; and (D) Temporal modulation detection as a function of mod-
ulation frequency in an average cochlear implant user (circles) and an average performance, whereas a cochlear implant user requires 10 dB,
normal-hearing listener (thick line) [38]. resulting in a 15 dB deficit in SNR. The SNR deficit is increased
to 30 dB when the noise is a competing voice [70], [199]–[201].
Panel B shows that while the cochlear implant users can use
frequency may be provided by place pitch, as evidenced by rhythmic cues normally, they cannot perform simple melody
the different saturation points between apical and basal elec- and timbre recognition [202]. It is amazing to observe that these
trodes at 1000–2000 Hz high stimulation rates. Current proces- implant users can converse relatively easily on the phone but
sors have not taken advantage of this dual pitch code. The spa- cannot tell the difference between two familiar nursery songs,
tial tuning curve in electric hearing can be 10 or more times suggesting that speech recognition and music perception are
wider than that in acoustic hearing. Although tripolar stimula- two different processes [203]. Panel C shows that cochlear im-
tion has been proposed, it is not clear how it and other similar plant users cannot perceive or produce Mandarin tones normally
proposals can effectively compensate for this huge difference [204], [205]. There is also evidence that cochlear implant users
in the spatial tuning curve [191], [192]. The psychophysical have a great deal of difficulty in talker identification [206] and
measure that justifies the “bionic ear” nickname is the superior emotion detection [207]. Advances in signal processing (Sec-
performance in detecting temporal variations by cochlear im- tion III) and electrode design (Section VI) are needed to bridge
plant users. Apparently this superior performance also has to do the performance gaps between normal-hearing and cochlear im-
with the lost cochlear compression [193] and significantly con- plant listeners.
tributes to cochlear implant speech performance [194].
One key question in early cochlear implant research was to X. BEYOND COCHLEAR IMPLANTS
evaluate how many channels are needed to support open-set Intensive and interesting investigation is being conducted
speech recognition. The answer was clearly more than one, but to extend the utility of cochlear implants. One active area of
whether 3–4 channels or 32 or more are needed depends upon research is to demonstrate the effectiveness of bilateral cochlear
the difficulty of the task, particularly upon whether the task re- implants and justify the cost of the second implant [209]. The
quires extraction and use of pitch of complex sounds [196], current bilateral implants are essentially two independent
[197]. At present, many modern cochlear implant users have devices, showing mostly the better ear or the head shadow
approached normal performance in standard audiological tests, effect [210]. However, encouraging results have been produced
e.g., daily sentence recognition in quiet [198]. by coordinating the use of two implants in the laboratory,
Another interesting question regarding system evaluation is: showing significantly improvement in detecting interaural
What does a cochlear implant sound like? This line of research timing differences [211] and binaural masking level differences
is also called acoustic simulation of cochlear implants, which [212]. These recent advances have increased the likelihood
has not only allowed a normal-hearing listener to appreciate of success in using two implants to produce truly functional
the sound of electric stimulation but also helped identify the binaural hearing. A second area of active research in extending
key parameters associated with cochlear implant performance. the cochlear implant’s utility is combined acoustic and electric
The acoustic simulation of the cochlear implant is based on hearing [213], [214]. Many hearing-impaired persons have
Fig. 22. Treatment of hearing impairment using hearing aids, middle ear
implants, and cochlear implants. The hearing aids shown are Exélia micro from
Phonak (www.phonak.com). The middle ear implant shown is Soundbridge
from Med-El (www.medel.com). The cochlear implant shown is Nucleus-24
from Cochlear (www.cochlear.com). The stimulation site of a brainstem
implant may be cochlear nucleus or inferior colliculus. The brainstem implant
shown is a penetrating electrode array that stimulates the cochlear nucleus
(developed by Huntington Medical Research Institutes: www.hmri.org).
implant packaging will become better and smaller, making to-

tally implantable devices feasible and effective [222].
For those who have an ossified cochlea, no auditory nerve, or
acoustic tumors, the cochlear implant is not going to provide any
help. The stimulation site has to be moved to the central auditory
nervous system. The auditory brainstem implant (ABI) stimu-
lates the first stage in the auditory brainstem (i.e., the cochlear
nuclei) has been ongoing for more than 20 years with several
hundred patients, but has produced mixed results [223], [224].
Fig. 21. Challenges facing the present cochlear implant users (open bars); Recent data suggest that the likelihood of success of the ABI de-
as a control, the comparative normal data are presented as the filled bars. A.
Speech recognition in noise, showing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) needed to pends on the presence of acoustic tumors, which has somehow
achieve 50% correct performance in the presence of either steady-state noise affected the integration of the central nerve pathways critical
or a competing voice [7]. Music perception, showing melody recognition [202] to speech perception [225]. Because of its relatively easy sur-
and timbre recognition [208]. C. Tonal language processing, showing Mandarin
tone perception [205] and production [204]. gical access and clearly defined anatomical structure, the infe-
rior colliculus (IC) has also been proposed as an effective stim-
ulation site [226]. Several patients have received the IC implant
significant residual hearing at low frequencies, for example, recently, producing useful hearing [227].
below 300 Hz. These low-frequency sounds are not even As the most successful neural prosthesis, the cochlear im-
transmitted by the telephone because they provided little or no plant has also served as a model for the design and evaluation
speech intelligibility [215]. Surprisingly, these low-frequency of other neural prostheses. One notable example is develop-
acoustic sounds, when combined with a cochlear implant, can ment of a retinal implant by Second Sight, which was based
improve the implant performance in noise by 10 dB in SNR on a 16-channel cochlear implant (Advanced Bionics Corpo-
[216]–[218]. All manufacturers are conducting clinical trials ration Clarion C1 device) and had been implanted in at least
in combined acoustic and electric hearing with the expectation six subjects blind as a result of retinitis pigmentosain [179]. In
that this new technology will penetrate new markets. the retinal implant, a camera replaced the microphone while a
It is clear that one has to go beyond cochlear implants to surface electrode array arranged in a 4 4 pattern replaced the
address the full spectrum of hearing disorders. Fig. 22 shows 16-electrode cochlear electrodes. The RF link protocol and the
presently available options in treating hearing impairment. The internal receiver and stimulator remained basically unchanged.
traditional hearing aid will likely occupy the largest market, The other example is the vestibular implant, which is used to
helping millions with moderate to severe hearing impairment. restore balance function [228], [229]. No human vestibular im-
The middle ear implant uses similar cochlear implant tech- plantation has been reported but the first vestibular implant used
nology but uses mechanical output to directly drive the cochlea, in a human clinical trial will likely be adapted from the cochlear
which will likely help those with conductive or mixed hearing implant. After all, the fundamental principles are the same for
loss, with unilateral loss, and with chronic dysfunction of the all neural prostheses, involving electric stimulation of the nerve.
middle ear [219]. The auditory nerve implant is also revived to
provide low stimulation current and sharp spatial selectivity, XI. SUMMARY
potentially solving the poor pitch perception problem in electric Electric stimulation had a humble beginning as dangerous
hearing [220], [221]. Hardware from the microphone to the direct current stimulation almost fried Volta’s brain. Thanks
to persistent and outstanding collaborative work by engineers, [18] W. F. House and J. Urban, “Long term results of electrode implantation
scientists, physicians, and entrepreneurs, safe and charge-bal- and electronic stimulation of the cochlea in man,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol.
Laryngol., vol. 82, pp. 504–517, 1973.
anced stimulation has now provided or restored hearing to more [19] J. H. Doyle, J. B. Doyal, and F. M. Turnbull, “Electrical stimulation
than 120 000 people worldwide. The present review has sys- of the eighth cranial nerve,” Arch. Otolaryngol., vol. 80, pp. 388–391,
tematically and comprehensively presented the cochlear implant 1964.
[20] W. Luxford and D. E. Brackmann, “The history of cochlear implants,”
system design and specifications, identified key subsystem com- in Cochlear Implants, R. F. Gray, Ed. San Diego, CA: College-Hill
ponents and functions, provided valuable system integration and Press, 1985, vol. 92105, pp. 1–26.
evaluation information, and discussed broad perspective and im- [21] C. H. Chouard, “The surgical rehabilitation of total deafness with the
pact beyond the cochlear implant. It is fair to conclude that the multichannel cochlear implant. Indications and results,” Audiology,
vol. 19, pp. 137–145, 1980.
cochlear implant not only has a long and distinguished history [22] D. K. Eddington, W. H. Dobelle, D. E. Brackmann, M. G. Mladevosky,
but also a bright future as it continues to broaden its utility for and J. L. Parkin, “Auditory prosthesis research with multiple channel
treatment of a wide range of hearing impairment and to serve as intracochlear stimulation in man,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol.
87, pp. 1–39, 1978.
a model to guide development of other neural prostheses. [23] I. J. Hochmair-Desoyer, E. S. Hochmair, K. Burian, and R. E. Fis-
cher, “Four years of experience with cochlear prostheses,” Med. Prog.
Technol., vol. 8, pp. 107–119, 1981.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT [24] N. Y. Kiang, E. C. Moxon, and R. A. Levine, “Auditory-nerve activity
in cats with normal and abnormal cochlea. In: Sensorineural hearing
The authors thank J. Roland, W. Luxford and T. Karkar- loss,” in Ciba Found. Symp., 1970, pp. 241–273.
aventos for temporal bone studies, and T. Lu, T. Chua, Q. Tang, [25] R. Garud and M. A. Rappa, “A socio-cognitive model of technology
evolution: The case of cochlear implants,” Organization Science, vol.
P. Lin, P. Leake, A. Copeland and K. Olsen for support and 5, pp. 344–362, 1994.
comments. [26] R. C. Bilger, “Psychoacoustic evaluation of present prostheses,” Ann.
Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl., vol. 86, pp. 92–104, 1977.
[27] R. C. Bilger and N. T. Hopkinson, “Hearing performance with the au-
REFERENCES ditory prosthesis,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl., vol. 86, pp.
76–91, 1977.
[1] A. Volta, “On the electricity excited by mere contact of conducting [28] R. C. Bilger and F. O. Black, “Auditory prostheses in perspective,” Ann.
substances of different kinds,” Royal Soc. Philos. Trans., vol. 90, pp. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl., vol. 86, pp. 3–10, 1977.
403–431, 1800. [29] R. C. Bilger, F. O. Black, and N. T. Hopkinson, “Research plan for eval-
[2] H. Fletcher, Speech and Hearing in Communication, Second ed. New uating subjects presently fitted with implanted auditory prostheses,”
York: D. Van Nostrand, 1953. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl., vol. 86, pp. 21–24, 1977.
[3] J. L. Flanagan and R. M. Golden, “Phase vocoder,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., [30] R. C. Bilger, N. R. Stenson, and J. L. Payne, “Subject acceptance of
vol. 45, pp. 1493–1509, 1966. implanted auditory prosthesis,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl.,
[4] H. Dudley, “The vocoder,” Bell Labs. Record, vol. 17, pp. 122–126, vol. 86, pp. 165–176, 1977.
1939. [31] R. C. Bilger, “Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve and auditory
[5] R. V. Shannon, F. G. Zeng, V. Kamath, J. Wygonski, and M. Ekelid, prostheses: A review of the literature,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol.
“Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues,” Science, vol. 270, Suppl., vol. 86, pp. 11–20, 1977.
pp. 303–304, 1995. [32] A. Van de Ven, D. Polley, R. Garud, and S. Venkataraman, The Inno-
[6] B. S. Wilson, C. C. Finley, D. T. Lawson, R. D. Wolford, D. K. vation Journey. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999.
Eddington, and W. M. Rabinowitz, “Better speech recognition with [33] “Cochlear implants,” in NIH Consensus Statement, May 2–4, 1988, vol.
cochlear implants,” Nature, vol. 352, pp. 236–238, 1991. 7, no. 2.
[7] F. G. Zeng, K. Nie, G. S. Stickney, Y. Y. Kong, M. Vongphoe, A. [34] D. K. Eddington, “Speech discrimination in deaf subjects with cochlear
Bhargave, C. Wei, and K. Cao, “Speech recognition with amplitude implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 68, pp. 885–891, 1980.
and frequency modulations,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 102, [35] B. S. Wilson, D. T. Lawson, C. C. Finley, and R. D. Wolford, “Coding
pp. 2293–2298, 2005. strategies for multichannel cochlear prostheses,” Am. J. Otol., vol. 12,
[8] G. Flottorp, “Effect of different types of electrodes in electrophonic no. Suppl, pp. 56–61, 1991.
hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 25, pp. 236–245, 1953. [36] F. G. Zeng and R. V. Shannon, “Loudness-coding mechanisms inferred
[9] F. B. Simmons, “Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man,” from electric stimulation of the human auditory system,” Science, vol.
Arch. Otolaryngol., vol. 84, pp. 2–54, 1966. 264, pp. 564–566, 1994.
[10] S. Stevens and R. Jones, “The mechanism of hearing by electrical stim- [37] M. F. Dorman, S. Soli, K. Dankowski, L. M. Smith, G. McCandless,
ulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 10, pp. 261–269, 1939. and J. Parkin, “Acoustic cues for consonant identification by patients
[11] S. Stevens, “On hearing by electrical stimulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., who use the Ineraid cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 88, pp.
vol. 8, pp. 191–195, 1937. 2074–2079, 1990.
[12] R. Jones, S. Stevens, and M. Lurie, “Three mechanisms of hearing by [38] R. V. Shannon, “Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients
electrical stimulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 12, pp. 281–290, 1940. with cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 91, pp. 2156–2164,
[13] A. Djourno and C. Eyries, “Auditory prosthesis by means of a distant 1992.
electrical stimulation of the sensory nerve with the use of an indwelt [39] S. K. An, S. I. Park, S. B. Jun, C. J. Lee, K. M. Byun, J. H. Sung, B. S.
coiling,” Presse. Med., vol. 65, p. 1417, 1957. Wilson, S. J. Rebscher, S. H. Oh, and S. J. Kim, “Design for a simplified
[14] A. Djourno, C. Eyries, and P. Vallancien, “Preliminary attempts of elec- cochlear implant system,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54, no. 6, pt.
trical excitation of the auditory nerve in man, by permanently inserted 1, pp. 973–982, Jun. 2007.
micro-apparatus,” Bull. Acad. Nat. Med., vol. 141, pp. 481–483, 1957. [40] F. G. Zeng, “Trends in cochlear implants,” Trends Amplif., vol. 8, pp.
[15] A. Djourno, C. Eyries, and B. Vallancien, “Electric excitation of the 1–34, 2004.
cochlear nerve in man by induction at a distance with the aid of micro- [41] T. Balkany, A. Hodges, C. Menapace, L. Hazard, C. Driscoll, B. Gantz,
coil included in the fixture,” C. R. Seances Soc. Biol. Fil., vol. 151, pp. D. Kelsall, W. Luxford, S. McMenomy, J. G. Neely, B. Peters, H. Pills-
423–425, 1957. bury, J. Roberson, D. Schramm, S. Telian, S. Waltzman, B. Westerberg,
[16] F. B. Simmons, J. M. Epley, R. C. Lummis, N. Guttman, L. S. Fr- and S. Payne, “Nucleus freedom north american clinical trial,” Oto-
ishkopf, L. D. Harmon, and E. Zwicker, “Auditory nerve: Electrical laryngol. Head Neck Surg., vol. 136, pp. 757–762, 2007.
stimulation in man,” Science, vol. 148, pp. 104–106, 1965. [42] D. B. Koch, M. J. Osberger, P. Segel, and D. Kessler, “HiResolution
[17] R. P. Michelson, “The results of electrical stimulation of the cochlea and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear:
in human sensory deafness,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol. 80, pp. Using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition
914–919, 1971. ability,” Audiol. Neurootol., vol. 9, pp. 214–223, 2004.
[43] C. Arnoldner, D. Riss, M. Brunner, M. Durisin, W. D. Baumgartner, [66] K. Nie, A. Barco, and F. G. Zeng, “Spectral and temporal cues in
and J. S. Hamzavi, “Speech and music perception with the new fine cochlear implant speech perception,” Ear Hear., vol. 27, pp. 208–217,
structure speech coding strategy: Preliminary results,” Acta Oto- 2006.
Laryngol., vol. 127, pp. 1298–1303, 2007. [67] F. G. Zeng and R. V. Shannon, “Loudness balance between electric and
[44] B. J. Edgerton, K. J. Doyle, J. Brimacombe, M. J. Danley, and acoustic stimulation,” Hear. Res., vol. 60, pp. 231–235, 1992.
R. J. Fretz, “The effects of signal processing by the house-urban [68] B. S. Wilson, C. C. Finley, J. C. Farmer, Jr., D. T. Lawson, B. A. Weber,
single-channel stimulator on auditory perception abilities of patients R. D. Wolford, P. D. Kenan, M. W. White, M. M. Merzenich, and R.
with cochlear implants,” Ann. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 405, pp. A. Schindler, “Comparative studies of speech processing strategies for
311–322, 1983. cochlear implants,” Laryngoscope, vol. 98, pp. 1069–1077, 1988.
[45] G. M. Clark et al., “The University of Melbourne—Nucleus multi-elec- [69] W. K. Lai, H. Bogli, and N. Dillier, “A software tool for analyzing mul-
trode cochlear implant,” Adv. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 38, pp. V-IX, tichannel cochlear implant signals,” Ear Hear., vol. 24, pp. 380–391,
1–181, 1987. 2003.
[46] J. F. Patrick, P. A. Busby, and P. J. Gibson, “The development of the [70] F. G. Zeng and J. J. Galvin 3rd, “Amplitude mapping and phoneme
Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system,” Trends Amplif., vol. 10, recognition in cochlear implant listeners,” Ear Hear., vol. 20, pp.
pp. 175–200, 2006. 60–74, 1999.
[47] I. Hochmair, P. Nopp, C. Jolly, M. Schmidt, H. Schosser, C. Garnham, [71] K. E. Fishman, R. V. Shannon, and W. H. Slattery, “Speech recognition
and I. Anderson, “MED-EL cochlear implants: State of the art and a as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear
implant speech processor,” J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res., vol. 40, pp.
glimpse into the future,” Trends Amplif., vol. 10, pp. 201–219, 2006.
1201–1215, 1997.
[48] C. J. James, M. W. Skinner, L. F. Martin, L. K. Holden, K. L. Galvin,
[72] L. Litvak, A. Saoji, A. Spahr, A. Kulkarni, and M. Marzalek, “Use of
T. A. Holden, and L. Whitford, “An investigation of input level range
simultaneous stimulation to represent fine structure in cochlear implant
for the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception perfor-
processors,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 123, p. 3055, 2008.
mance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings,” Ear Hear.,
[73] B. S. Wilson, R. Schatzer, E. A. Lopez-Poveda, X. Sun, D. T. Lawson,
vol. 24, pp. 157–174, 2003. and R. D. Wolford, “Two new directions in speech processor design for
[49] A. J. Spahr, M. F. Dorman, and L. H. Loiselle, “Performance of pa- cochlear implants,” Ear Hear, vol. 26, pp. 73S–81S, 2005.
tients using different cochlear implant systems: Effects of input dy- [74] T. Green, A. Faulkner, S. Rosen, and O. Macherey, “Enhancement of
namic range,” Ear Hear., vol. 28, pp. 260–275, 2007. temporal periodicity cues in cochlear implants: Effects on prosodic per-
[50] F. G. Zeng, G. Grant, J. Niparko, J. Galvin, R. Shannon, J. Opie, and ception and vowel identification,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 118, pp.
P. Segel, “Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant 375–385, 2005.
performance,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 111, pp. 377–386, 2002. [75] J. Laneau, J. Wouters, and M. Moonen, “Improved music perception
[51] F. G. Zeng, “Temporal pitch in electric hearing,” Hear. Res., vol. 174, with explicit pitch coding in cochlear implants,” Audiol. Neurootol.,
pp. 101–106, 2002. vol. 11, pp. 38–52, 2006.
[52] T. Green, A. Faulkner, and S. Rosen, “Enhancing temporal cues to [76] N. Lan, K. B. Nie, S. K. Gao, and F. G. Zeng, “A novel speech-pro-
voice pitch in continuous interleaved sampling cochlear implants,” J. cessing strategy incorporating tonal information for cochlear implants,”
Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 116, pp. 2298–2310, 2004. IEEE Trans. Biomed Eng., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 752–760, May 2004.
[53] J. Laneau, J. Wouters, and M. Moonen, “Relative contributions of tem- [77] J. T. Rubinstein, B. S. Wilson, C. C. Finley, and P. J. Abbas, “Pseu-
poral and place pitch cues to fundamental frequency discrimination in dospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve
cochlear implantees,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 116, pp. 3606–3619, fibers with electrical stimulation,” Hear. Res., vol. 127, pp. 108–118,
2004. 1999.
[54] P. C. Loizou, “Signal-processing techniques for cochlear implants,” [78] G. E. Loeb, “Are cochlear implant patients suffering from perceptual
IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag., vol. 18, pp. 34–46, 1999. dissonance?,” Ear Hear., vol. 26, pp. 435–450, 2005.
[55] J. T. Rubinstein, “How cochlear implants encode speech,” Curr. Opin. [79] K. Nie, G. Stickney, and F. G. Zeng, “Encoding frequency modula-
Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., vol. 12, pp. 444–448, 2004. tion to improve cochlear implant performance in noise,” IEEE Trans.
[56] S. U. Ay, F.-G. Zeng, and B. J. Sheu, “Hearing with bionic ears,” IEEE Biomed. Eng., vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 64–73, Jan. 2005.
Circuits and Devices Mag., vol. 5, pp. 18–23, 1997. [80] C. S. Throckmorton, M. S. Kucukoglu, J. J. Remus, and L. M. Collins,
[57] G. Fant, Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. The Hague: Mouton, “Acoustic model investigation of a multiple carrier frequency algo-
1970. rithm for encoding fine frequency structure: Implications for cochlear
[58] F. G. Zeng, “Role of temporal fine structure in speech perception,” J. implants,” Hear. Res., vol. 218, pp. 30–42, 2006.
Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 123, p. 3710, 2008. [81] P. A. Crosby, C. N. Daly, D. K. Money, J. F. Patrick, P. M. Seligman,
[59] P. M. Seligman, J. F. Patrick, Y. C. Tong, G. M. Clark, R. C. Dowell, J. A. Kuzma, and , Commonwealth of Australia Dept. of Science &
and P. A. Crosby, “A signal processor for a multiple-electrode hearing Technology, Belconnan, AU, “Cochlear Implant System for an Audi-
prosthesis,” Acta Otolaryngol. Suppl., vol. 411, pp. 135–139, 1984. tory Prosthesis,” U.S. Patent 4 532 930, 1985.
[60] P. J. Blamey, R. C. Dowell, G. M. Clark, and P. M. Seligman, “Acoustic [82] I. J. Hochmair and E. S. Hochmair, “Transcutaneous Power and Signal
parameters measured by a formant-estimating speech processor for a Transmission System and Methods for Increased Signal Transmission
multiple-channel cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 82, pp. Efficiency,” U.S. Patent 5 070 535, 1991.
[83] C. M. Zierhofer and E. S. Hochmair, “Geometric approach for
38–47, 1987.
coupling enhancement of magnetically coupled coils,” IEEE Trans.
[61] J. F. Patrick and G. M. Clark, “The Nucleus 22-channel cochlear im-
Biomed. Eng., vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 708–714, Jul. 1996.
plant system,” Ear Hear., vol. 12, pp. 3S–9S, 1991.
[84] R. V. Shannon, D. D. Adams, R. L. Ferrel, R. L. Palumbo, and M.
[62] M. W. Skinner, L. K. Holden, T. A. Holden, R. C. Dowell, P. M.
Grandgenett, “A computer interface for psychophysical and speech re-
Seligman, J. A. Brimacombe, and A. L. Beiter, “Performance of
search with the Nucleus cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 87,
postlinguistically deaf adults with the wearable speech processor pp. 905–907, 1990.
(WSP III) and mini speech processor (MSP) of the nucleus multi-elec- [85] M. E. Robert and J. Wygonski, House Ear Institute Nucleus Research
trode cochlear implant,” Ear Hear., vol. 12, pp. 3–22, 1991. Interface (HEINRI) Users Guide. Los Angeles, CA: House Ear Inst.,
[63] D. J. Van Tasell, S. D. Soli, V. M. Kirby, and G. P. Windin, “Speech 2002.
waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition,” J. Acoust. Soc. [86] C. N. Daly and H. McDermott, “Embedded Data Link and Protocol,”
Am., vol. 82, pp. 1152–1161, 1987. U.S. Patent 5 741 314, 1998.
[64] S. Rosen, “Temporal information in speech: Acoustic, auditory and lin- [87] A. E. Vandali, L. A. Whitford, K. L. Plant, and G. M. Clark, “Speech
guistic aspects,” Philos Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B, Biol. Sci., vol. 336, perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: Using the Nu-
pp. 367–373, 1992. cleus 24 cochlear implant system,” Ear Hear., vol. 21, pp. 608–624,
[65] H. J. McDermott, C. M. McKay, and A. E. Vandali, “A new portable 2000.
sound processor for the University of Melbourne/Nucleus Limited [88] L. M. Friesen, R. V. Shannon, and R. J. Cruz, “Effects of stimulation
multielectrode cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 91, pp. rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants,” Audiol. Neurootol.,
3367–3371, 1992. vol. 10, pp. 169–184, 2005.
[89] K. Plant, L. Holden, M. Skinner, J. Arcaroli, L. Whitford, M. A. Law, [112] T. Hashimoto, C. M. Elder, and J. L. Vitek, “A template subtraction
and E. Nel, “Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nu- method for stimulus artifact removal in high-frequency deep brain stim-
cleus research platform 8 system,” Ear Hear, vol. 28, pp. 381–393, ulation,” J. Neurosci. Methods, vol. 113, pp. 181–186, 2002.
2007. [113] L. F. Heffer and J. B. Fallon, “A novel stimulus artifact removal tech-
[90] N. O. Sokal and A. D. Sokal, “Class E-A new class of high-efficiency nique for high-rate electrical stimulation,” J. Neurosci. Methods, vol.
tuned single-ended switching power amplifiers,” IEEE J. Solid-State 170, pp. 277–284, 2008.
Circuits, vol. SSC-10, no. 3, pp. 168–176, Jun. 1975. [114] G. A. Griffith, M. A. Faltys, and , Advanced Bionics Corporation, “Re-
[91] M. Kazimierczuk and K. Puczko, “Exact analysis of class E tuned mote Control Unit for Use with an Implantable Neural Stimulator,”
power amplifier at any Q and switch duty cycle,” IEEE Trans. Circuits U.S. Patent 7 092 763, Aug. 15, 2006.
Syst., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 149–159, Jan. 1987. [115] O. Stakhovskaya, D. Sridhar, B. Bonham, and P. A. Leake, “Frequency
[92] T. W. Hahn, G. A. Griffith, and , Advanced Bionics Corporation, map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: Implications for cochlear
Sylmar, CA, “Power Transfer Circuit for Implanted Devices,” U.S. implants,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 220–233, 2007.
Patent 6 212 431, 2001. [116] M. Dorman, A. Spahr, R. Gifford, L. Loiselle, S. McKarns, T. Holden,
[93] C. M. Shaquer and , Cochlear Limited, Lane Cove, AU, “Transcuta- M. Skinner, and C. Finley, “An electric-to-place map for a cochlear
neous Power Optimization Circuit for Cochlear Implant,” U.S. Patent implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear,” J. Assoc. Res.
6 810 289, 2004. Otolaryngol., vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 234–240, 2007.
[94] C. M. Zierhofer and , Med-El Elektromedizinishe Geraete GmbH, [117] C. Boex, L. Baud, G. Cosendai, A. Sigrist, M. Kos, and M. Pelizzone,
Innsbruck, AT, “Multichannel Cochlear Implant with Neural Response “Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects
Telemetry,” U.S. Patent 6 600 955, 2003. with residual hearing,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., vol. Epub, pp. 1–15,
[95] J. H. Schulman, D. I. Whitmoyer, J. C. Gord, P. Strojnik, and , Alfred E. 2006.
Mann Foundation for Scientific Research, Sylmar, CA, “Multichannel [118] B. Escude, C. James, O. Deguine, N. Cochard, E. Eter, and B. Fraysse,
Cochlear Implant System Including Wearable Speech Processor,” U.S. “The size of the cochlea and predictions of insertion depth angles for
Patent 5 603 726, 1997. cochlear implant electrodes,” Aud. Neurotol., vol. 11, no. Suppl 1, pp.
[96] H. McDermott, “An advanced multiple channel cochlear implant,” 27–33, 2006.
IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 789–797, Jul. 1989. [119] O. Adunka and J. Kiefer, “Impact of electrode insertion depth on
[97] R. V. Shannon, “A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation,” IEEE intracochlear trauma,” Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., vol. 135, pp.
Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 424–426, Apr. 1992. 374–382, 2006.
[98] D. B. McCreery, W. F. Agnew, T. G. Yuen, and L. Bullara, “Charge [120] C. G. Wright, P. S. Roland, and J. Kuzma, “Advanced bionics thin
density and charge per phase as cofactors in neural injury induced by lateral and helix II electrodes: A temporal bone study,” Laryngoscope,
electrical stimulation,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 37, no. , pp. vol. 115, pp. 2041–2045, 2005.
996–1001, Oct. 1990. [121] S. J. Rebscher, M. Heilmann, W. Bruszewski, N. H. Talbot, R. L.
[99] C. Q. Huang, R. K. Shepherd, P. M. Carter, P. M. Seligman, and B. Snyder, and M. M. Merzenich, “Strategies to improve electrode
Tabor, “Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: Direct current positioning and safety in cochlear implants,” IEEE Trans. Biomed.
measurement in vivo,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. Eng., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 340–352, Mar. 1999.
461–470, Apr. 1999. [122] S. J. Rebscher, N. Talbot, W. Bruszewski, M. Heilmann, J. Brasell, and
[100] C. Q. Huang, R. K. Shepherd, P. M. Seligman, and G. M. Clark, “Re- M. M. Merzenich, “A transparent model of the human scala tympani
duction in excitability of the auditory nerve following acute electrical cavity,” J. Neurosci. Meth., vol. 64, pp. 105–114, 1996.
stimulation at high stimulus rates: III. Capacitive versus non-capaci- [123] B. K. Chen, G. M. Clark, and R. Jones, “Evaluation of trajectories and
tive coupling of the stimulating electrodes,” Hear. Res., vol. 116, pp. contact pressures for the straight nucleus cochlear implant electrode
55–64, 1998. array – A two-dimensional application of finite element analysis,” Med.
Eng. and Phys., vol. 25, pp. 141–147, 2003.
[101] M. Ghovanloo and K. Najafi, “A compact large voltage-compliance
[124] S. J. Rebscher, A. Hetherington, B. Bonham, P. Wardrop, D. Whinney,
high output-impedance programmable current source for implantable
and P. A. Leake, “Considerations for design of future cochlear implant
microstimulators,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 52, no. 1, pp.
electrode arrays: Electrode array stiffness, size and depth of insertion,”
97–105, Jan. 2005.
J. Rehab. Res. Dev., vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 731–747, 2008.
[102] J. C. Gord and , Advanced Bionics Corporation, Sylmar, CA, “Pro-
[125] H. N. Kha, B. K. Chen, G. Clark, and R. Jones, “Stiffness properties
grammable Current Output Stimulus Stage for Implantable Device,”
for Nucleus standard straight and contour electrode arrays,” Med. Eng.
U.S. Patent 6 181 969, 2001.
and Phys., vol. 26, pp. 677–685, 2004.
[103] M. W. Baker and R. Sarpeshkar, “Feedback analysis and design of RF
[126] J. T. Roland, “A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and
power links for low-power bionic systems,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Cir-
force evaluation: Results with a new electrode design and insertion
cuits Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 28–38, Mar. 2007.
technique,” Laryngoscope, vol. 115, pp. 1325–1339, 2005.
[104] N. M. Neihart and R. R. Harrison, “Micropower circuits for bidirec-
[127] P. Wardrop, D. Whinney, S. J. Rebscher, W. Luxford, and P. Leake,
tional wireless telemetry in neural recording applications,” IEEE Trans.
“A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and intracochlear position
Biomed. Eng., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1950–1959, Nov. 2005. of cochlear implant electrodes. II: Comparison of Spiral Clarion and
[105] D. Money and , Cochlear Pty. Ltd., Lane Cove, AU, “High Compliance HiFocus II electrodes,” Hear. Res., vol. 203, pp. 68–79, 2005.
Output Stage for a Tissue Stimulator,” U.S. Patent 6 289 246, 2001. [128] T. J. Balkany, A. A. Eshraghi, and N. Yang, “Modiolar proximity of
[106] R. T. Karunasiri and , Advanced Bionics Corporation, Valencia, CA, three perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes,” Acta Otolaryngol.,
US, “Digitally Controlled RF Amplifier with Wide Dynamic Range vol. 122, pp. 363–369, 2002.
Output,” U.S. Patent 7 016 738, 2006. [129] B. Fraysse, A. R. Macias, O. Sterkers, S. Burdo, R. Ramsden, O.
[107] P. J. Abbas, C. J. Brown, J. K. Shallop, J. B. Firszt, M. L. Hughes, S. H. Deguine, T. Klenzner, T. Lenarz, M. Rodriguez, E. Von Wallenberg,
Hong, and S. J. Staller, “Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M and C. James, “Residual hearing conservation and electroacoustic
implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential,” stimulation with the nucleus 24 contour advance cochlear implant,”
Ear Hear., vol. 20, pp. 45–59, 1999. Otol. Neurotol., vol. 27, pp. 624–633, 2006.
[108] F. B. van der Beek, P. P. Boermans, B. M. Verbist, J. J. Briaire, and J. [130] C. James, B. Fraysse, O. Deguine, T. Lenarz, D. Mawman, A. Ramos,
H. Frijns, “Clinical evaluation of the Clarion CII HiFocus 1 with and R. Ramsden, and O. Sterkers, “Combined electroacoustic stimulation
without positioner,” Ear Hear., vol. 26, pp. 577–592, 2005. in conventional candidates for cochlear implantation,” Aud. Neurotol.,
[109] C. A. Miller, P. J. Abbas, and C. J. Brown, “An improved method of vol. 11, pp. 57–62, 2006, Suppl. 1.
reducing stimulus artifact in the electrically evoked whole-nerve po- [131] B. Fraysse, N. Dillier, T. Klenzner, R. Laszig, M. Manrique, C. M.
tential,” Ear Hear., vol. 21, pp. 280–290, 2000. Perez, A. H. Morgon, J. Muller-Deile, and A. R. Macias, “Cochlear
[110] C. van den Honert and P. H. Stypulkowski, “Characterization of the implants for adults obtaining marginal benefit from acoustic amplifica-
electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) in cats and hu- tion,” Am. J. Otol., vol. 19, pp. 591–597, 1998.
mans,” Hear. Res., vol. 21, pp. 109–126, 1986. [132] B. Gantz, C. Turner, and K. Gfeller, “Acoustic plus electric speech
[111] C. A. Miller, P. J. Abbas, and J. T. Rubinstein, “An empirically based processing: Preliminary results of a multicenter clinical trial of the
model of the electrically evoked compound action potential,” Hear. iowa/nucleus hybrid implant,” Aud. Neurotol., vol. 11, pp. 63–68, 2006,
Res., vol. 135, pp. 1–18, 1999. Suppl. 1.
[133] B. Gantz, C. Turner, K. Gfeller, and M. Lowder, “Preservation of [151] P. Leake and S. J. Rebscher, “Anatomical considerations and long-term
hearing in cochlear implant surgery: Advantages of combined elec- effects of electrical stimulation,” in Cochlear Implants: Auditory Pros-
trical and acoustical speech processing,” Laryngoscope, vol. 115, pp. theses and Electric Hearing, Springer Handbool of Auditory Research,
796–806, 2005. R. R. Fay, Ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004, pp. 101–148.
[134] O. Adunka, M. Unkelbach, M. Mack, M. Hambek, W. Gstoettner, and [152] S. J. Rebscher, R. L. Snyder, and P. A. Leake, “The effect of electrode
J. Kiefer, “Cochlear implantation via the round window minimizes configuration and duration of deafness on threshold and selectivity of
trauma to cochlear structures: A histologically controlled study,” Acta responses to intracochlear electrical stimulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am.,
Otolaryngol., vol. 124, pp. 807–812, 2004. vol. 109, pp. 2035–2048, 2001.
[135] T. Lenarz, T. Stover, A. Buechner, G. Paasche, R. Briggs, F. Risi, J. [153] J. H. M. Frijns, J. J. Briaire, and J. J. Grote, “The importance of human
Pesch, and R. Battmer, “Temporal bone results and hearing preserva- cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel
tion with a new straight electrode,” Aud. Neurotol., vol. 11, pp. 34–41, cochlear implants,” Otol. Neurotol., vol. 22, pp. 340–349, 2001.
2006, Suppl. 1. [154] J. H. M. Frijns, S. L. d. Snoo, and J. H. t. Kate, “Spatial selectivity in
[136] R. J. S. Briggs, M. Tykocinski, J. Xu, F. Risi, M. Svehla, R. Cowan, a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea,”
T. Stover, P. Erfurt, and T. Lenarz, “Comparison of round window and Hear. Res., vol. 95, pp. 33–48, 1996.
cochleostomy approaches with a prototype hearing preservation elec- [155] J. Nadol and Y. Young, “Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound
trode,” Aud. Neurotol., vol. 11, no. Suppl 1, pp. 42–48, 2006. sensorineural hearing loss: Implications for cochlear implantation,”
[137] J. T. Roland, D. Zeitler, D. Jethanamest, and T. C. Huang, “Evaluation Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol. 98, pp. 411–416, 1989.
of the short hybrid electrode in human temporal bones,” Otol. Neu- [156] M. W. Skinner, T. A. Holden, B. R. Whiting, A. H. Voie, B. Brunsden,
rotol., vol. 29, pp. 482–488, 2008. J. G. Neely, E. A. Saxon, T. E. Hullar, and C. C. Finley, “In vivo esti-
[138] P. Wardrop, D. Whinney, S. J. Rebscher, J. T. J. Roland, W. Luxford, mates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human
and P. A. Leake, “A temporal bone study of insertion trauma and in- cochlea,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl., vol. 197, pp. 2–24, 2007.
tracochlear position of cochlear implant electrodes. I: Comparison of [157] C. C. Finley, T. A. Holden, L. K. Holden, B. R. Whiting, R. A. Chole,
Nucleus banded and Nucleus Contour electrodes,” Hear. Res., vol. 203, G. J. Neely, T. E. Hullar, and M. W. Skinner, “Role of electrode place-
pp. 54–67, 2005. ment as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes,” Otol.
[139] M. Skinner, D. Ketten, L. Holden, G. Harding, P. Smith, G. Gates, J. Neurotol., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 920–928, 2008.
Neely, G. Kletzker, B. Brunsden, and B. Blocker, “CT-derived esti- [158] A. Aschendorff, R. Kubalek, and B. Turowsi, “Quality control after
mation of cochlear morphology and electrode array position in rela- cochlear implant surgery by means of rotational tomography,” Otol.
tion to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients,” J. Assoc. Res. Oto- Neurotol., vol. 26, pp. 34–37, 2005.
laryngol., vol. 3, pp. 332–350, 2002. [159] A. Aschendorff, J. Kromeier, and T. Klenzner, “Quality control after
[140] J. B. Nadol, J. Y. Shiao, B. J. Burgess, D. R. Ketten, D. K. Eddington, insertion of the nucleus contour and contour advance electrode in
B. J. Gantz, I. Kos, P. Montandon, N. J. Coker, J. T. Roland, and J. K. adults,” Ear Hear., vol. 28, pp. 75S–79S, 2007.
Shallop, “Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans,” Ann. Otol. [160] M. Skinner, L. Holden, and B. Whiting, “In vivo estimates of the posi-
Rhinol. Laryngol., vol. 110, pp. 883–891, 2001. tion of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea,” Ann.
[141] B. Richter, A. Aschendorff, P. Lohnstein, H. Husstedt, H. Nagursky, Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol. 197, pp. 2–24, 2007.
and R. Laszig, “Clarion 1.2 standard electrode array with partial space- [161] T. J. Balkany, A. A. Eshraghi, and N. Yang, “Modiolar proximity of
filling positioner: Radiological and histological evaluation in human three perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes,” Acta Otolaryngol.,
temporal bones,” J. Laryngol. Otol., vol. 116, pp. 507–513, 2002. vol. 122, pp. 363–369, 2002.
[162] O. Lauridsen, C. Gunthersen, P. Bonding, and M. Tos, “Experiments
[142] B. Richter, A. Aschendorff, P. Lohnstein, H. Husstedt, H. Nagursky,
with a Thinfilm Multichannel Electrode for Cochlear Implantation,”
and R. Laszig, “The nucleus contour electrode array: A radiological
Acta Otolaryngol., vol. 95, pp. 219–226, 1983.
and histological study,” Laryngoscope, vol. 111, pp. 508–513, 2001.
[163] R. L. White, L. A. Roberts, N. E. Cotter, and K. Oh-Hyun, “Thin-Film
[143] R. Briggs, M. Tykocinski, E. Saunders, W. Hellier, M. Dahm, B.
Electrode Fabrication Techniques,” Ann. New York Acad. Sci., vol. 405,
Pyman, and G. Clark, “Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear
pp. 183–190, 1983.
implant electrode design: Avoiding intracochlear damage and scala
[164] B. Bonham and L. Litvak, “Current focusing and steering: Modeling,
vestibuli insertion,” Cochlear Implants Int., vol. 2, pp. 135–149, 2001.
physiology and psychophysics,” Hear. Res., 2008, to be published.
[144] M. Tykocinski, E. Saunders, L. T. Cohen, C. Treaba, R. J. S. Briggs, P.
[165] J. Firszt, D. Koch, M. Downing, and L. Litvak, “Current steering
Gibson, G. M. Clark, and R. S. C. Cowan, “The contour electrode array:
creates additional percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients,” Otol.
Safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design,”
Neurotol., 2007.
Otol. Neurotol., vol. 22, pp. 33–41, 2001.
[166] P. Busby and K. Plant, “Dual electrode stimulation using the nucleus
[145] M. Tykocinski, L. T. Cohen, B. C. Pyman, T. Roland, C. Treaba, J. Pala-
CI24RE cochlear implant: Electrode impedance and pitch ranking
mara, M. C. Dahm, R. K. Shepherd, J. Xu, R. S. Cowan, N. L. Cohen,
studies,” Ear Hear., vol. 26, pp. 504–511, 2005.
and G. M. Clark, “Comparison of electrode position in the human co-
[167] D. Koch, M. Downing, M. Osberger, and L. Litvak, “Using current
hclea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays,” Am. J. Otol., vol. steering to increase spectral resolution in CII and HiRes 90 K Users,”
21, pp. 205–211, 2000. Ear Hear., vol. 28, pp. 38S–41S, 2007.
[146] W. Gstoettner, H. Plenk, P. Franz, J. Hamzavi, W. Baumgartner, C. [168] K. Plant, M. A. Law, L. Whitford, M. Knight, S. Tari, J. Leigh, K.
Czerny, and K. Ehrenberger, “Cochlear implant deep electrode inser- Pedley, and E. Nel, “Evaluation of streamlined programming proce-
tion: Extent of insertional truama,” Acta Otolaryngol., vol. 117, pp. dures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode
274–277, 1997. array,” Ear Hear., vol. 26, pp. 651–668, 2005.
[147] J. T. Roland, “A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and [169] G. H. Wakefield, C. van den Honert, W. Parkinson, and S. Lineaweaver,
force evaluation: Results with a new electrode design and insertion “Genetic algorithms for adaptive psychophysical procedures: Recip-
technique,” Laryngoscope, vol. 115, pp. 1325–1339, 2005. ient-directed design of speech-processor MAPs,” Ear Hear., vol. 26,
[148] T. Stover, P. Issing, G. Graurock, P. Erfurt, Y. El Beltagy, G. Paasche, pp. 57S–72S, 2005.
and T. Lenarz, “Evaluation of the advance off-stylet insertion technique [170] Q. J. Fu and J. J. G. Galvin 3rd, “Maximizing cochlear implant patients’
and the cochlear insertion tool in temporal bones,” Otol. Neurotol., vol. performance with advanced speech training procedures,” Hear Res.,
26, pp. 1161–1170, 2005. 2007.
[149] O. F. Adunka, H. C. Pillsbury, and J. Kiefer, “Combining perimodiolar [171] L. G. Potts, M. W. Skinner, B. D. Gotter, M. J. Strube, and C. A.
electrode placement and atraumatic insertion properties in cochlear im- Brenner, “Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T-
plantation—Fact or fantasy?,” Acta Otolaryngol., vol. 126, no. 5, pp. and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear
475–482, 2006. implant recipients,” Ear Hear., vol. 28, pp. 495–511, 2007.
[150] J. Reefhuis, M. Honien, C. G. Whitney, E. A. Mann, K. R. Biernath, [172] G. F. Smoorenburg, C. Willeboer, and J. E. van Dijk, “Speech percep-
P. Costa, J. Eichwald, and C. Boyle, “Bacterial meningitis among chil- tion in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings
dren with cochlear implants beyond 24 months after implantation,” Pe- based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds,”
diatrics, vol. 117, pp. 284–289, 2006. Audiol. Neurootol., vol. 7, pp. 335–347, 2002.
[173] K. Seyle and C. J. Brown, “Speech perception using maps based on [195] D. A. Nelson, G. S. Donaldson, and H. Kreft, “Forward-masked spatial
neural response telemetry measures,” Ear Hear., vol. 23, pp. 72S–79S, tuning curves in cochlear implant users,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 123,
2002. pp. 1522–1543, 2008.
[174] L. G. Spivak, P. M. Chute, A. L. Popp, and S. C. Parisier, “Program- [196] Z. M. Smith, B. Delgutte, and A. J. Oxenham, “Chimaeric sounds re-
ming the cochlear implant based on electrical acoustic reflex thresh- veal dichotomies in auditory perception,” Nature, vol. 416, pp. 87–90,
olds: Patient performance,” Laryngoscope, vol. 104, pp. 1225–1230, 2002.
1994. [197] R. V. Shannon, “Recent advances in cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc.
[175] R. S. Clement, P. M. Carter, and D. R. Kipke, “Measuring the electrical Am., vol. 87, pp. 421–422, 1990.
stapedius reflex with stapedius muscle electromyogram recordings,” [198] B. S. Wilson and M. F. Dorman, “The surprising performance of
Ann. Biomed. Eng., vol. 30, pp. 169–179, 2002. present-day cochlear implants,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54,
[176] C. C. Finley, T. A. Holden, L. K. Holden, B. R. Whiting, R. A. Chole, no. 6, pt. 1, pp. 969–972, Jun. 2007.
G. J. Neely, T. E. Hullar, and M. W. Skinner, “Role of electrode place- [199] Q. J. Fu and R. V. Shannon, “Phoneme recognition by cochlear im-
ment as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes,” Otol. plant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear ampli-
Neurotol., 2008. tude mapping,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 106, pp. L18–L23, 1999.
[177] M. W. Skinner, D. R. Ketten, L. K. Holden, G. W. Harding, P. G. Smith, [200] M. F. Dorman, P. C. Loizou, J. Fitzke, and Z. Tu, “The recognition
G. A. Gates, J. G. Neely, G. R. Kletzker, B. Brunsden, and B. Blocker,
of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of
“CT-derived estimation of cochlear morphology and electrode array
cochlear-implant signal processors with 6–20 channels,” J. Acoust. Soc.
position in relation to word recognition in Nucleus-22 recipients,” J.
Am., vol. 104, pp. 3583–3585, 1998.
Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol., vol. 3, pp. 332–350, 2002.
[201] G. Stickney, F. Zeng, R. Litovsky, and P. Assmann, “Cochlear implant
[178] N. R. French and J. C. Steinberg, “Factors governing the intelligibility
of speech sounds,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 19, pp. 90–119, 1947. speech recognition with speech masker,” J. Acous. Soc. Am., vol. 116,
[179] C. De Balthasar, S. Patel, A. Roy, R. Freda, S. Greenwald, A. Horsager, no. 2, pp. 1081–1091, 2003.
M. Mahadevappa, D. Yanai, M. J. McMahon, M. S. Humayun, R. J. [202] Y. Y. Kong, R. Cruz, J. A. Jones, and F. G. Zeng, “Music perception
Greenberg, J. D. Weiland, and I. Fine, “Factors affecting perceptual with temporal cues in acoustic and electric hearing,” Ear Hear., vol.
thresholds in epiretinal prostheses,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., vol. 25, pp. 173–185, 2004.
49, pp. 2303–2314, 2008. [203] R. J. Zatorre, P. Belin, and V. B. Penhune, “Structure and function
[180] N. L. Cohen, J. T. Roland Jr., and M. Marrinan, “Meningitis in cochlear of auditory cortex: Music and speech,” Trends Cogn. Sci., vol. 6, pp.
implant recipients: The North American experience,” Otol. Neurotol., 37–46, 2002.
vol. 25, pp. 275–281, 2004. [204] D. Han, N. Zhou, Y. Li, X. Chen, X. Zhao, and L. Xu, “Tone production
[181] C. G. Whitney, “Cochlear implants and meningitis in children,” Pe- of Mandarin Chinese speaking children with cochlear implants,” Int. J.
diatr. Infect. Dis. J., vol. 23, pp. 767–768, 2004. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 71, pp. 875–880, 2007.
[182] J. Reefhuis, M. A. Honein, C. G. Whitney, S. Chamany, E. A. Mann, [205] C. G. Wei, K. Cao, and F. G. Zeng, “Mandarin tone recognition in
K. R. Biernath, K. Broder, S. Manning, S. Avashia, M. Victor, P. Costa, cochlear-implant subjects,” Hear. Res., vol. 197, pp. 87–95, 2004.
O. Devine, A. Graham, and C. Boyle, “Risk of bacterial meningitis in [206] M. Vongphoe and F. G. Zeng, “Speaker recognition with temporal cues
children with cochlear implants,” New England J. Med., vol. 349, pp. in acoustic and electric hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 118, pp.
435–445, 2003. 1055–1061, 2005.
[183] B. P. Wei, R. K. Shepherd, R. M. Robins-Browne, G. M. Clark, and [207] L. Xin, Q. J. Fu, and J. J. Galvin 3rd, “Vocal emotion recognition by
S. J. O’Leary, “Effects of inner ear trauma on the risk of pneumo- normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users,” Trends Amplif.,
coccal meningitis,” Arch Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., vol. 133, pp. vol. 11, pp. 301–315, 2007.
250–259, 2007. [208] K. Gfeller, S. Witt, G. Woodworth, M. A. Mehr, and J. Knutson, “Ef-
[184] Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff – Recognition and Use of Con- fects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on
sensus Standards U.S. Food and Drug Admin., 2007. timbre recognition and appraisal,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol., vol.
[185] D. Harnack, C. Winter, W. Meissner, T. Reum, A. Kupsch, and R. Mor- 111, pp. 349–356, 2002.
genstern, “The effects of electrode material, charge density and stimu- [209] A. Q. Summerfield, D. H. Marshall, G. R. Barton, and K. E. Bloor, “A
lation duration on the safety of high-frequency stimulation of the sub- cost-utility scenario analysis of bilateral cochlear implantation,” Arch.
thalamic nucleus in rats,” J. Neurosci. Meth., vol. 138, pp. 207–216, Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg., vol. 128, pp. 1255–1262, 2002.
2004. [210] P. Schleich, P. Nopp, and P. D’Haese, “Head shadow, squelch, and
[186] G. C. Mendes, T. R. Brandao, and C. L. Silva, “Ethylene oxide steril- summation effects in bilateral users of the MED-EL COMBI 40/40+
ization of medical devices: A review,” Am. J. Infect. Control., vol. 35, cochlear implant,” Ear Hear., vol. 25, pp. 197–204, 2004.
pp. 574–581, 2007.
[211] B. Laback and P. Majdak, “Binaural jitter improves interaural time-
[187] G. Lazzi, “Thermal effects of bioimplants,” IEEE. Eng. Med. Biol.
difference sensitivity of cochlear implantees at high pulse rates,” Proc
Mag., vol. 24, pp. 75–81, 2005.
Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 105, pp. 814–817, 2008.
[188] Guidance for Industry and FDA Premarketand Design Control Re-
[212] C. J. Long, R. P. Carlyon, R. Y. Litovsky, and D. H. Downs, “Bin-
viewers: Medical Device Use-Safety: Incorporating Human Factors
aural unmasking with bilateral cochlear implants,” J. Assoc. Res. Oto-
Engineering into Risk Management U.S. Food and Drug Admin.,
2000. laryngol., vol. 7, pp. 352–360, 2006.
[189] A. K. Cheng, H. R. Rubin, N. R. Powe, N. K. Mellon, H. W. Francis, [213] C. von Ilberg, J. Kiefer, J. Tillein, T. Pfenningdorff, R. Hartmann, E.
and J. K. Niparko, “Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in chil- Sturzebecher, and R. Klinke, “Electric-acoustic stimulation of the au-
dren,” J. Am. Med. Assoc., vol. 284, no. 7, pp. 850–856, 2000. ditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss,” ORL J. Otorhi-
[190] F. G. Zeng, “Compression and cochlear Implants,” in Compression: nolaryngol. Relat. Spec., vol. 61, pp. 334–340, 1999.
From Cochlea to Cochlear Implants, S. P. Bacon, A. N. Popper, and [214] B. J. Gantz and C. Turner, “Combining acoustic and electrical speech
R. R. Fay, Eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2003, vol. 17, Springer processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant,” Acta Otolaryngol., vol.
Handbook of Auditory Research, pp. 184–220. 124, pp. 344–347, 2004.
[191] R. L. Snyder, J. C. Middlebrooks, and B. H. Bonham, “Cochlear im- [215] J. E. Chang, J. Y. Bai, and F. G. Zeng, “Unintelligible low-frequency
plant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tono- sound enhances simulated cochlear-implant speech recognition
topic selectivity,” Hear. Res., vol. 235, pp. 23–38, 2008. in noise,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 53, no. 12, pt. 2, pp.
[192] J. A. Bierer and J. C. Middlebrooks, “Auditory cortical images of 2598–2601, Dec. 2006.
cochlear-implant stimuli: Dependence on electrode configuration,” J. [216] Y. Y. Kong, G. S. Stickney, and F. G. Zeng, “Speech and melody recog-
Neurophysiol., vol. 87, pp. 478–492, 2002. nition in binaurally combined acoustic and electric hearing,” J. Acoust.
[193] A. J. Oxenham and S. P. Bacon, “Cochlear compression: Perceptual Soc. Am., vol. 117, pp. 1351–1361, 2005.
measures and implications for normal and impaired hearing,” Ear [217] M. F. Dorman, R. H. Gifford, A. J. Spahr, and S. A. McKarns, “The
Hear., vol. 24, pp. 352–366, 2003. benefits of combining acoustic and electric stimulation for the recog-
[194] Q. J. Fu, “Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear im- nition of speech, voice and melodies,” Audiol. Neurootol., vol. 13, pp.
plant users,” Neuroreport, vol. 13, pp. 1635–1639, 2002. 105–112, 2008.
[218] C. Turner, B. Gantz, C. Vidal, A. Behrens, and B. Henry, “Speech Stephen Rebscher was born in Redwood City, CA.
recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: Benefits of residual He received the B.S. degree with highest honors in
acoustic hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 115, pp. 1729–1735, 2004. biological sciences and the M.A. degree in biological
[219] T. A. Ricketts, Middle Ear Implants. New York: Westminister, 2002, and natural sciences, both from San Jose State Uni-
vol. 6. versity, San Jose, CA, in 1976 and 1979, respectively.
[220] J. C. Middlebrooks and R. L. Snyder, “Auditory prosthesis with a pen- He has been a research specialist in the De-
etrating nerve array,” J. Assoc Res. Otolaryngol., vol. 8, pp. 258–279, partment of Otolaryngology at the University of
2007. California in San Francisco since 1979. His primary
[221] A. N. Badi, T. R. Kertesz, R. K. Gurgel, C. Shelton, and R. A. Normann, area of interest is the development of safe and effec-
“Development of a novel eighth-nerve intraneural auditory neuropros- tive cochlear implant electrode arrays. To this end,
thesis,” Laryngoscope, vol. 113, pp. 833–842, 2003. he has worked to better understand the mechanics
[222] R. J. Briggs, H. C. Eder, P. M. Seligman, R. S. Cowan, K. L. Plant, and effects of stimulation of prototype electrode arrays and to evaluate the
J. Dalton, D. K. Money, and J. F. Patrick, “Initial clinical experience safety of currently available cochlear implants. He is a co-inventor of the
with a totally implantable cochlear implant research device,” Otol. Neu- UCSF/Advanced bionics clinical cochlear implant system and co-inventor on
several patents describing the design and development of cochlear implant
rotol., vol. 29, pp. 114–119, 2008.
electrode arrays.
[223] D. B. McCreery, “Cochlear nucleus auditory prostheses,” Hear. Res.,
vol. 242, pp. 64–73, 2008.
[224] M. S. Schwartz, S. R. Otto, R. V. Shannon, W. E. Hitselberger, and
D. E. Brackmann, “Auditory brainstem implants,” Neurotherapeutics,
vol. 5, pp. 128–136, 2008. William “Van” Harrison is currently Executive
[225] V. Colletti, “Auditory outcomes in tumor vs. nontumor patients fitted Chairman of the Board, Managing Director, Chief
with auditory brainstem implants,” Adv. Otorhinolaryngol., vol. 64, pp. Technology Officer of SILERE Medical Technology,
167–185, 2006. Inc., a Washington State neuro-stimulation company.
[226] T. Lenarz, H. H. Lim, G. Reuter, J. F. Patrick, and M. Lenarz, “The au- He started as a design engineer at Hewlett Packard
and his career has transcended over 30 years of
ditory midbrain implant: A new auditory prosthesis for neural deafness-
pioneering product development and technology
concept and device description,” Otol. Neurotol., vol. 27, pp. 838–843,
advances in medical devices. As a vice president for
2006.
10 years at the Advanced Bionics Corporation, he
[227] H. H. Lim, T. Lenarz, G. Joseph, R. D. Battmer, A. Samii, M. Samii, led the engineering team that developed the HR-90
J. F. Patrick, and M. Lenarz, “Electrical stimulation of the mid- k cochlear implant, which was regarded as the most
brain for hearing restoration: Insight into the functional organization advanced and sophisticated neuro-stimulation device ever developed and
of the human central auditory system,” J. Neurosci., vol. 27, pp. commercially distributed at that time. Prior to his tenure at Advanced Bionics,
13541–13551, 2007. he co-founded and managed Acoustic Imaging Corporation, a highly regarded
[228] C. C. D. Santina, A. A. Migliaccio, and A. H. Patel, “A multichannel diagnostic ultrasound imaging company.
semicircular canal neural prosthesis using electrical stimulation to re-
store 3-D vestibular sensation,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 54, no.
6, pt. 1, pp. 1016–1030, Jun. 2007.
[229] D. M. Merfeld, C. Haburcakova, W. Gong, and R. F. Lewis, “Chronic
vestibulo-ocular reflexes evoked by a vestibular prosthesis,” IEEE Xiaoan Sun received the Ph.D. degree in electrical
Trans. Biomed.Eng., vol. 54, no. 6, pt. 1, pp. 1005–1015, Jun. 2007. engineering from Southern Methodist University,
[230] Q. Tang, personal communication. Dallas, TX.
He joined the Research Triangle Institute, Re-
search Triangle Park, NC, as an electrical engineer
in auditory prosthesis research. His work in RTI
included signal processing strategy, digital signal
processing hardware and software development
for cochlear implants, cochlear implant research
interface development, safety protection hardware
development for direct current stimulation of the
inner ear. Since 2006, he has been the technical director of Nurotron Biotech-
nology Inc., Irvine, CA. He has worked on circuit development for cochlear
implants, transcutaneous power and data transmission, high-efficiency RF
Fan-Gang Zeng (S’88–M’91–SM’07) is a Pro- power amplifier, RF receiver, system design and verification.
fessor in Anatomy and Neurobiology, Biomedical
Engineering, Cognitive Sciences and Otolaryn-
gology—Head and Neck Surgery at the University
of California, Irvine. He has published more than
70 peer-reviewed journal articles, 20 book chapters, Haihong Feng received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.
and two books including a volume on cochlear degrees in underwater acoustics engineering from
implants in Springer Handbook of Auditory Re- Harbin Engineering University, Harbin, China, in
search (Springer-Verlag). He holds 10 U.S. patents 1988, 1991, and 1996, respectively.
and has given more than 100 invited presentations From 1996 to 1999, he was an Associate Pro-
worldwide. fessor at the Department of Underwater Acoustics
Dr. Zeng is on the editorial board for IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, China.
ENGINEERING, Journal of Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Journal From 1999 to 2003, he was the Vice Director of
of Otology, Audiology and Neurotology, and Hearing Research. He has reviewed National Key Laboratory of Underwater Acoustics
grants for the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Na- Technology, Harbin Engineering University, China.
tional Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Sciences and Engineering From 2004 to 2008, he was the Director of Shanghai
Research Council of Canada, and British Welcome Trust. He is on the Advisory Acoustics Laboratory of Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Board of Apherma Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA, Nurotron Biotech Inc., Irvine, (IACAS). His research interests include underwater acoustics engineering,
CA, and ImThera Inc., San Diego, CA. cochlear implants, and speech signal processing.

COCHELEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COCHELEA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COCHELEA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IEEE REVIEWS IN BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, VOL.

Cochlear Implants: System Design, Integration, and

Clinical Application Review

Abstract—As the most successful neural prosthesis, cochlear I. INTRODUCTION

Fig. 3. Sentence recognition scores with a quiet background as a function of

Fig. 3 summarizes sentence recognition scores in quiet by

II. SYSTEM DESIGN AND SPECIFICATION

Fig. 6. Classifications of signal processing strategies in cochlear implants.

5 in the original CIS implementation [6] and as many as 20 in

figure) out of the “ ” electrodes are stimulated in a particular

TABLE II A. Bit Coding

Fig. 11. The embedded mode frame coding scheme.

Table II). The multiple current sources allow one-to-one map-

in regular cochlear implants. Temporal bone studies using

spiral ganglion and those with greatly degenerated spiral gan-

[163], however, delamination and failure in both the insulation

vocoders that extract temporal envelopes from a number of spec-

implant packaging will become better and smaller, making to-

You might also like