Intra-cochlear differences in the spread of excitation between biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulation in cochlear implants: A modeling and experimental study.

Triphasic pulse stimulation can prevent unpleasant facial nerve stimulation in cochlear implant users. Using electromyographic measurements on facial nerve effector muscles, previous studies have shown that biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulations produce different input-output functions. However, little is known about the intracochlear effects of triphasic stimulation and how these may contribute to the amelioration of facial nerve stimulation. The present study used a computational model of implanted human cochleae to investigate the effect of pulse shape on the intracochlear spread of excitation. Biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulations were simulated from three different cochlear implant electrode contact positions. To validate the model results, experimental spread of excitation measurements were conducted with biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulation from three different electrode contact positions in 13 cochlear implant users. The model results depict differences between biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulations depending on the position of the stimulating electrode contact. While biphasic and triphasic pulse stimulations from a medial or basal electrode contact caused similar extents of neural excitation, differences between the pulse shapes were observed when the stimulating contact was located in the cochlear apex. In contrast, the experimental results showed no difference between the biphasic and triphasic initiated spread of excitation for any of the tested contact positions. The model was also used to study responses of neurons without peripheral processes to mimic the effect of neural degeneration. For all three contact positions, simulated degeneration shifted the neural responses towards the apex. Biphasic pulse stimulation showed a stronger response with neural degeneration compared to without degeneration, while triphasic pulse stimulation showed no difference. As previous measurements have demonstrated an ameliorative effect of triphasic pulse stimulation on facial nerve stimulation from medial electrode contact positions, the results imply that a complementary effect located at the facial nerve level must be responsible for reducing facial nerve stimulation.