Effects of electrical pulse polarity shape on intra cochlear neural responses in humans: Triphasic pulses with anodic
David P Herrmann1, Katharina V A Kretzer1, Sabrina H Pieper1
1Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Plastic, Aesthetic and Reconstructive Head and Neck Surgery and the Comprehensive Hearing Center, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Abstract:
Modern cochlear implants employ charge-balanced biphasic and triphasic pulses. However, the effectiveness of electrical pulse shape and polarity is still a matter of debate. For this purpose, a previous study (Bahmer & Baumann, 2013) conducted electrophysiological and psychophysical measurements following triphasic pulse stimulation with constant cathodic second phase and varying anodic first and third phases. Pulse stimulation with constant anodic second phase was not investigated. Therefore, in this study, pulse stimulation with cathodic and anodic second phase was applied for the recording of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) as well as for psychophysical thresholds in cochlear implant (CI) recipients. First it was investigated whether the temporal polarity distribution has a different effect on neuronal stimulation when the second phase is cathodic or anodic; second, whether the electrophysiological and psychophysical results show a comparable difference between triphasic stimulation with anodic and cathodic second phases. The results showed that variation of the temporal polarity distribution of the triphasic pulse had a smaller effect on the ECAP response when the second phase was anodic compared to when it was cathodic, whereas for psychophysical detection thresholds this variation had a similar effect for both polarities. While electrophysiological responses and psychophysical detection thresholds showed a high correlation for variations of the triphasic pulse with cathodic second phase, the results for variations of the triphasic pulse with anodic second phase showed only moderate correlation. Furthermore, the difference between triphasic stimulation with cathodic and anodic second phases did not correlate between the electrophysiological and psychophysical results. In summary, after stimulation with different configurations of triphasic pulses used in the present study, the polarity of the second phase has an effect on electrophysiological response at suprathreshold level but not on the psychophysical detection thresholds. Thus, at different stimulation levels a possible substitution of the psychophysical test by an electrophysiological measurement (e.g. neural health measurement of the cochlea) could not be corroborated by the present results.
