Automatic Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants Using Electric Field Imaging: Bench and Clinical Validation

Objectives: Extracochlear electrodes (EEs), defined as electrode contacts located outside the cochlea, can degrade cochlear implant (CI) performance. We present and validate an Electric Field Imaging (EFI)-based algorithm that helps detect EEs and can be used intra- or post-operatively. Methods: An algorithm for detecting EEs from EFI data was developed. Validation and testing were performed using three datasets: (a) bench models with known EE conditions (saline and resistive load model), (b) clinical EFI recordings from CI recipients with imaging confirmation (CT or plain X-ray), and (c) EFI recordings without imaging. Primary outcomes included the ability to differentiate extracochlear conditions from fully inserted electrode arrays, as well as the concordance between the number of EE contacts identified by the algorithm and those determined from controlled bench configurations or available imaging data. Results: The algorithm reliably differentiated full insertion from EE conditions on bench models and clinical EFI recordings from CI recipients with imaging confirmation. In the imaging-confirmed clinical cohort (6 EE cases among 226 CI recipients), the algorithm achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity. In clinical cases without imaging, the algorithm flagged 3.94% as having extracochlear electrodes, within the range of prevalence reported in the literature. Furthermore, the lateral-wall electrode arrays were associated with a significantly higher extracochlear electrode occurrence compared to the pre-curved arrays. Conclusions: This EFI-based algorithm may provide a useful screening tool for EEs using routine clinical measurements, supporting intra-operative and post-operative detection while reducing reliance on imaging and thereby aiding clinical decision-making. The method can be integrated into existing clinical fitting software workflow and complements recent work on EFI-based tip fold-over detection. The observed sensitivity and specificity suggest that this approach may provide a valuable tool for identifying EEs in situations where imaging is unavailable or impractical.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Audiology Research
Published
2026-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/audiolres16040119
Primary Topic
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Automatic Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants Using Electric Field Imaging: Bench and Clinical Validation

Susan T. Eitutis, Tony Spahr, Jordan Varghese, Syed F. Ahsan et al.
Audiology Research
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
article

Automatic Detection of Extracochlear Electrodes in Cochlear Implants Using Electric Field Imaging: Bench and Clinical Validation

Susan T. Eitutis, Tony Spahr, Jordan Varghese, Syed F. Ahsan, Andrea J. DeFreese, Kanthaiah Koka, Kyle P. Allen, Craig A. Buchman, Mehrangiz Ashiri, René H. Gifford, Daniele Borsetto, Patrick Boyle, Azret Botash, Manohar Bance, Loren Bartels, Matthew Miller, Ashish Mehta, Christopher Danner, Chen Chen
article en

Abstract

Objectives: Extracochlear electrodes (EEs), defined as electrode contacts located outside the cochlea, can degrade cochlear implant (CI) performance. We present and validate an Electric Field Imaging (EFI)-based algorithm that helps detect EEs and can be used intra- or post-operatively. Methods: An algorithm for detecting EEs from EFI data was developed. Validation and testing were performed using three datasets: (a) bench models with known EE conditions (saline and resistive load model), (b) clinical EFI recordings from CI recipients with imaging confirmation (CT or plain X-ray), and (c) EFI recordings without imaging. Primary outcomes included the ability to differentiate extracochlear conditions from fully inserted electrode arrays, as well as the concordance between the number of EE contacts identified by the algorithm and those determined from controlled bench configurations or available imaging data. Results: The algorithm reliably differentiated full insertion from EE conditions on bench models and clinical EFI recordings from CI recipients with imaging confirmation. In the imaging-confirmed clinical cohort (6 EE cases among 226 CI recipients), the algorithm achieved 100% sensitivity and specificity. In clinical cases without imaging, the algorithm flagged 3.94% as having extracochlear electrodes, within the range of prevalence reported in the literature. Furthermore, the lateral-wall electrode arrays were associated with a significantly higher extracochlear electrode occurrence compared to the pre-curved arrays. Conclusions: This EFI-based algorithm may provide a useful screening tool for EEs using routine clinical measurements, supporting intra-operative and post-operative detection while reducing reliance on imaging and thereby aiding clinical decision-making. The method can be integrated into existing clinical fitting software workflow and complements recent work on EFI-based tip fold-over detection. The observed sensitivity and specificity suggest that this approach may provide a valuable tool for identifying EEs in situations where imaging is unavailable or impractical.

Audiology ResearchVol. 16(4)
Sanford Health (US), Barrow Neurological Institute (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), University of Utah (US), University of Cambridge (GB), Advanced Technology and Research Corporation (United States) (US), Oklahoma Heart Hospital (US), Kaiser Permanente Anaheim Medical Center (US), Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US), University of Tampa (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.