Revisiting Analog Electrical Stimulation with Current Focusing in a Guinea Pig Model of Cochlear Implants

Le résumé fourni par la source

Modern cochlear implants (CIs) use pulsatile stimulation to restore hearing for individuals with severe hearing loss. CIs provide robust speech recognition in quiet but poorly represent temporal fine structure (TFS), needed for challenging listening situations. Analog stimulation preserves the acoustic waveform and may better encode TFS, yet it has not been evaluated combined with modern current-focusing strategies. We compared neural responses in the inferior colliculus (IC) evoked by CI stimuli consisting of 100 pulses/s biphasic pulse trains and 100 cycles/s sinusoidal analog stimulation with monopolar, bipolar, and tripolar electrode configurations in urethane-anesthetized guinea pigs. Following cochlear implantation, multiunit activity was recorded from the tonotopic axis of the central nucleus of the IC using 16-channel silicon probes. Detection thresholds, spread of excitation, vector strength, sustained response percentage, and temporal response properties were quantified. Analog stimulation consistently evoked significantly lower activation thresholds than pulsatile stimulation while maintaining comparable or sometimes narrower spatial selectivity across stimulation modes. In contrast, analog stimulation generated lower vector strength, larger tonic response components, and a pronounced level-dependent polarity effect. At low stimulus levels, responses were dominated by the cathodic phase of the sinusoidal waveform, whereas increasing stimulus level responses were elicited by both phases, producing synchronization at twice the stimulus frequency. These findings demonstrate that stimulation waveform strongly influences temporal coding while having relatively little effect on the spatial distribution of neural activation. These results provide a physiological basis for reexamining analog stimulation as an alternative strategy for cochlear implant sound coding.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.