Literature DB >> 11385182

Contralateral masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear.

C James1, P Blamey, J K Shallop, P V Incerti, A M Nicholas.   

Abstract

Contralateral masking was investigated in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear. Threshold elevations for acoustic probes were observed when electrical maskers were presented in the opposite ear. Also, threshold elevations for electrical probes were observed when acoustic contralateral maskers were presented. The amount of threshold shift expressed in decibels charge or decibels sound pressure level produced by either contralateral acoustic or electric maskers was within the range found in normal listeners for similar stimuli (i.e. 4-8 dB). There was a correlation between the sensation level of acoustic maskers and the maximum amount of masking observed which is consistent with data for normally hearing subjects. The width of the masking patterns was similar to that expected from forward masking patterns in severely sensorineurally impaired ears and implanted ears. The maximum amount of acoustic masking tended to occur for electrode positions that were more basal than expected from characteristic frequency positions. However, where a relatively high-frequency 4-kHz masker could be used, there was a good match between the characteristic frequency position of the maximum threshold elevation and that of the masker.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11385182     DOI: 10.1159/000046814

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  16 in total

1.  Effects of a cochlear implant simulation on immediate memory in normal-hearing adults.

Authors:  Rose A Burkholder; David B Pisoni; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Tony Spahr; Rene Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sharon McKarns; Timothy Holden; Margaret Skinner; Charles Finley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-10

3.  Electromotile hearing: acoustic tones mask psychophysical response to high-frequency electrical stimulation of intact guinea pig cochleae.

Authors:  Colleen G Le Prell; Kohei Kawamoto; Yehoash Raphael; David F Dolan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Ipsilateral masking between acoustic and electric stimulations.

Authors:  Payton Lin; Christopher W Turner; Bruce J Gantz; Hamid R Djalilian; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Central masking with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Payton Lin; Thomas Lu; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.

Authors:  Colette Boëx; Lionel Baud; Grégoire Cosendai; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-02-01

7.  Combined Electric and Acoustic Stimulation With Hearing Preservation: Effect of Cochlear Implant Low-Frequency Cutoff on Speech Understanding and Perceived Listening Difficulty.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Timothy J Davis; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Christine Menapace; Barbara Buck; Jillian Crosson; Lori O'Neill; Anne Beiter; Phil Segel
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Bimodal cochlear implants: the role of acoustic signal level in determining speech perception benefit.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Philip Loizou; Shuai Wang; Ting Zhang; Anthony Spahr; Louise Loiselle; Sarah Cook
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Christopher W Turner; Sheryl R Erenberg; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.