Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.

Objective: The effect on speech perception of using higher stimulation rates than the 14.4 kHz available in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system was investigated. The study used the Nucleus Research Platform 8 (RP8) system, comprising the CI24RE receiver-stimulator with the Contour electrode array, the L34SP body-worn research speech processor, and the Nucleus Programming Environment (NPE) fitting and Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) software. This system enabled clinical investigation of higher stimulation rates before an implementation in the Freedom cochlear implant system commercially released by Cochlear Limited.

Design: Use of higher stimulation rates in the ACE coding strategy was assessed in 15 adult subjects. An ABAB experimental design was used to control for order effects. Program A used a total stimulation rate of between 12 kHz and 14.4 kHz. This program was used for at least the first 3 mo after initial device activation. After evaluation with this program, each subject was provided with two different higher stimulation rate programs: one with a total stimulation rate of 24 kHz and the other with a total stimulation rate of 32 kHz. After a 6-week period of familiarization, each subject identified his/her preferred higher rate program (program B), and this was used for the evaluation. Subjects then repeated their use of program A for 3 wk, then program B for 3 wk, before the second evaluation with each. Speech perception was evaluated by using CNC open-set monosyllabic words presented in quiet and CUNY open-set sentences presented in noise. Preference for stimulation rate program was assessed via a subjective questionnaire. Threshold (T)- and Comfortable (C)-levels, as well as subjective reports of tinnitus, were monitored for each subject throughout the study to determine whether there were any changes that might be associated with the use of higher stimulation rates.

Results: No significant mean differences in speech perception results were found for the group between the two programs for tests in either quiet or noise. Analysis of individual subject data showed that five subjects had significant benefit from use of program B for tests administered in quiet and for tests administered in noise. However, only two of these subjects showed benefit in both test conditions. One subject showed significant benefit from use of program A when tested in quiet, whereas another showed benefit with this program in noise. Each subject's preferred program varied. Five subjects reported a preference for program A, eight subjects reported a preference for program B and two reported no overall preference. Preference between the different stimulation rates provided within program B also varied, with 10 subjects preferring 24 kHz and five preferring 32 kHz total stimulation rates. A significant increase in T-levels from baseline measures was observed after three weeks of initial experience with program B, however there was no difference between the baseline levels and those obtained after five weeks of use. No significant change in C-levels was found over the monitoring period. No long-term changes in tinnitus that could be associated with the use of the higher stimulation rates were reported by any of the subjects.

Conclusions: The use of higher stimulation rates may provide benefit to some but not all cochlear implant recipients. It is important to optimize the stimulation rate for an individual to ensure maximal benefit. The absence of any changes in T- and C-levels or in tinnitus suggests that higher stimulation rates are safe for clinical use.