Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Validating a rapid psychophysical procedure for estimating interaural time difference thresholds.

Hearing research·2025

Same author

The relationship between interaural coherence, interaural level differences, and binaural fusion.

Hearing research·2025

Same author

Using harmonicity to facilitate binaural fusion.

JASA express letters·2025

Same author

Impact of cochlear implants use on voice production and quality.

Scientific reports·2024

Same author

Temporal pitch matching with bilateral cochlear implants.

JASA express letters·2024

Same author

Response to Letter to the Editor by Goupell et al.

Ear and hearing·2024

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 18, 2025

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

Comparing Methods for Pairing Electrodes Across Ears With Cochlear Implants.

Hannah E Staisloff¹, Justin M Aronoff

¹Department of Speech and Hearing Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA.

Ear and Hearing

|February 4, 2021

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Optimal electrode pairing in bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) varies by binaural cue, particularly at the basal array end. This finding impacts how CIs are programmed for improved auditory perception.

More Related Videos

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 18, 2025

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Robotic Cochlear Implantation for Direct Cochlear Access

Published on: June 16, 2022

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Performing Intracochlear Electrocochleography During Cochlear Implantation

Published on: March 8, 2022

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Author Spotlight: Advancements in Impedance Monitoring for Cochlear Implant Surgery

Published on: August 4, 2023

Area of Science:

Audiology
Neuroscience
Biomedical Engineering

Background:

Bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) are programmed using electrode pairings based on electrode array location.
This standard method may reduce sensitivity to interaural time differences (ITD) and interaural level differences (ILD), crucial for binaural hearing.
Previous research on optimal electrode pairing is limited by single-reference locations or users, hindering systematic analysis.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate if optimal electrode pairings differ across the cochlear array based on experience-dependent adaptation.
To determine if these pairings vary when optimized for interaural time differences (ITD), interaural level differences (ILD), or pitch perception.
To compare these optimized pairings with current clinical programming methods.

Main Methods:

Analyzed data from seven bilateral Nucleus cochlear implant users.
Tested participants using ITD, ILD, and pitch-matching tasks.
Utilized five reference electrodes across the array in one ear for comparisons.

Main Results:

A significant difference in optimal electrode pairing was observed based on the measured cue.
This difference was specifically noted at the basal end of the electrode array.
Optimal pairings varied depending on whether ITD sensitivity, ILD sensitivity, or pitch matching was the criterion.

Conclusions:

Optimal electrode pairings are cue-dependent, especially at the basal array region.
Improvements in binaural perception with optimized electrode pairings may depend on the specific perceptual task used for both programming and assessment.
Current clinical programming may not be optimal for all binaural cues across all electrode regions.