Literature DB >> 10713502

Detection of small across-channel timing differences by cochlear implantees.

R P Carlyon1, L Geurts, J Wouters.   

Abstract

Five post-lingually deafened users of the LAURA cochlear implant were presented with two trains of biphasic pulses applied concurrently to two widely separated channels. They could all discriminate between stimuli where pulses on the two channels were nearly synchronous (inter-channel delay=0.1 ms) and those where there was a longer delay applied to one channel. All showed an asymmetry, being more sensitive when the longer delay was on either the more basal or, depending on the listener, the more apical channel. For four out of the five listeners this asymmetry could be at least partly attributed to one stimulus, with a 0.1-ms delay in either the apical (three listeners) or basal (one listener) channel, sounding markedly different from all other stimuli used in the experiment. Both the overall sensitivity of listeners and the general pattern of results survived the presentation of maskers on intermediate channels, and did not vary markedly with changes in the polarity of the pulses applied to one channel. Although the results varied substantially across listeners, it is concluded that they demonstrate a genuine sensitivity to the relative timing of stimulation applied to discrete populations of auditory nerve fibers.

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10713502     DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(99)00215-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  6 in total

1.  Discrimination of Schroeder-phase harmonic complexes by normal-hearing and cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Jeff K Longnion; Chad Ruffin; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-12-08

2.  Discrimination between sequential and simultaneous virtual channels with electrical hearing.

Authors:  David Landsberger; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

4.  Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  Marc D Eisen; Kevin H Franck
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

5.  Comodulation masking release in electric hearing.

Authors:  Robert H Pierzycki; Bernhard U Seeber
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-11

6.  Temporal pitch percepts elicited by dual-channel stimulation of a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.