Magnitude and phase of three-dimensional (3D) velocity vector: Application to measurement of cochlear promontory motion during bone conduction sound transmission
&NA; Recent measurements of vibrational motion to assess sound transmission through ear structures and skull contents have included three‐dimensional (3D) behavior. The 3D motion of a point has been described with the three orthogonal components in the 3D space. In this article, a method to represent the 3D velocity with the magnitude and phase of the resultant velocity is introduced. This method was applied to the measurement of cochlear promontory motion as an indication of bone conduction (BC) sound transmission. The promontory motions were measured on the ipsilateral and contralateral sides, and the transcranial attenuation and phase delay of the contralateral side relative to the ipsilateral side were calculated. The transcranial attenuation and phase delay calculated with the maximum magnitudes and corresponding phases of the resultant were a better fit to the interaural threshold difference and transcranial time interval between the ipsilateral and contralateral sides as reported in the literature, than the attenuation and phase delay calculated with any individual Cartesian motion component. HighlightsA method to calculate the magnitude and phase of the 3D velocity vector is described.The 3D velocity of a point can be represented by the magnitude and phase of the resultant instead of the magnitudes and phases of the three orthogonal components.The method was applied to the measurement of cochlear promontory motion as an indication of bone conduction (BC) sound transmission.The maximum velocity vector of the cochlear promontory motion is a better descriptor of BC hearing than individual Cartesian components.
A Comparison of Intracochlear Pressures During Ipsilateral and Contralateral Stimulation With a Bone Conduction Implant
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Objectives: To compare contralateral to ipsilateral stimulation with percutaneous and transcutaneous bone conduction implants. Background: Bone conduction implants (BCIs) effectively treat conductive and mixed hearing losses. In some cases, such as in single-sided deafness, the BCI is implanted contralateral to the remaining healthy ear in an attempt to restore some of the benefits provided by binaural hearing. While the benefit of contralateral stimulation has been shown in at least some patients, it is not clear what cues or mechanisms contribute to this function. Previous studies have investigated the motion of the ossicular chain, skull, and round window in response to bone vibration. Here, we extend those reports by reporting simultaneous measurements of cochlear promontory velocity and intracochlear pressures during bone conduction stimulation with two common BCI attachments, and directly compare ipsilateral to contralateral stimulation. Methods: Fresh–frozen whole human heads were prepared bilaterally with mastoidectomies. Intracochlear pressure (PIC) in the scala vestibuli (PSV) and tympani (PST) was measured with fiber optic pressure probes concurrently with cochlear promontory velocity (VProm) via laser Doppler vibrometry during stimulation provided with a closed-field loudspeaker or a BCI. Stimuli were pure tones between 120 and 10,240 Hz, and response magnitudes and phases for PIC and VProm were measured for air and bone conducted sound presentation. Results: Contralateral stimulation produced lower response magnitudes and longer delays than ipsilateral in all measures, particularly for high-frequency stimulation. Contralateral response magnitudes were lower than ipsilateral response magnitudes by up to 10 to 15 dB above ~2 kHz for a skin-penetrating abutment, which increased to 25 to 30 dB and extended to lower frequencies when applied with a transcutaneous (skin drive) attachment. Conclusions: Transcranial attenuation and delay suggest that ipsilateral stimulation will be dominant for frequencies over ~1 kHz, and that complex phase interactions will occur during bilateral or bimodal stimulation. These effects indicate a mechanism by which bilateral users could gain some bilateral advantage.
Feedback Analysis in Percutaneous Bone-Conduction Device and Bone-Conduction Implant on a Dry Cranium
Hypothesis The bone-conduction implant (BCI) can use a higher gain setting without having feedback problems compared with a percutaneous bone-conduction device (PBCD). Background The conventional PBCD, today, is a common treatment for patients with conductive hearing loss and single-sided deafness. However, there are minor drawbacks reported related to the percutaneous implant and specifically poor high-frequency gain. The BCI system is designed as an alternative to the percutaneous system because it leaves the skin intact and is less prone to fall into feedback oscillations, thus allowing more high-frequency gain. Methods Loop gains of the Baha Classic 300 and the BCI were measured in the frequency range of 100 to 10,000 Hz attached to a Skull simulator and a dry cranium. The Baha and the BCI positions were investigated. The devices were adjusted to full-on gain. Results It was found that the gain headroom using the BCI was generally 0 to 10 dB better at higher frequencies than using the Baha for a given mechanical output. More specifically, if the mechanical output of the devices were normalized at the cochlear level the improvement in gain headroom with the BCI versus the Baha were in the range of 10 to 30 dB. Conclusion Using a BCI, significantly higher gain setting can be used without feedback problems as compared with using a PBCD.