Literature DB >> 11550528

Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses.

B E Pfingst1, K H Franck, L Xu, E M Bauer, T A Zwolan.   

Abstract

Recent research and clinical experience with cochlear implants suggest that subjects' speech recognition with monopolar or broad bipolar stimulation might be equal to or better than that obtained with narrow bipolar stimulation or other spatially restricted electrode configurations. Furthermore, subjects often prefer the monopolar configurations. The mechanisms underlying these effects are not clear. Two hypotheses are (a) that broader configurations excite more neurons resulting in a more detailed and robust neural representation of the signal and (b) that broader configurations achieve a better spatial distribution of the excited neurons. In this study we compared the effects of electrode configuration and the effects of longitudinal placement and spacing of the active electrodes on speech recognition in human subjects. We used experimental processor maps consisting of 11 active electrodes in a 22-electrode scala tympani array. Narrow bipolar (BP), wide bipolar (BP + 6), and monopolar (MP2) configurations were tested with various locations of active electrodes. We tested basal, centered, and apical locations (with adjacent active electrodes) and spatially distributed locations (with every other electrode active) with electrode configuration held constant. Ten postlingually deafened adult human subjects with Nucleus prostheses were tested using the SPEAK processing strategy. The effects of electrode configuration and longitudinal place of stimulation on recognition of CNC phonemes and words in quiet and CUNY sentences in noise (+10 dB S/N) were similar. Both independent variables had large effects on speech recognition and there were interactions between these variables. These results suggest that the effects of electrode configuration on speech recognition might be due, in part, to differences among the various configurations in the spatial location of stimulation. Correlations of subjective judgments of sound quality with speech-recognition ability were moderate, suggesting that the mechanisms contributing to subjective quality and speech-recognition ability do not completely overlap.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11550528      PMCID: PMC3201186          DOI: 10.1007/s101620010065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  30 in total

1.  Features of stimulation affecting tonal-speech perception: implications for cochlear prostheses.

Authors:  Li Xu; Yuhjung Tsai; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Cochlear implants and brain stem implants.

Authors:  Richard T Ramsden
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 4.291

3.  Multichannel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05-27

4.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

5.  Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-11-04

6.  Frequency map for the human cochlear spiral ganglion: implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Olga Stakhovskaya; Divya Sridhar; Ben H Bonham; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-02-21

7.  Assessment of electrode placement and audiological outcomes in bilateral cochlear implantation.

Authors:  George B Wanna; Jack H Noble; Theodore R McRackan; Benoit M Dawant; Mary S Dietrich; Linsey D Watkins; Alejandro Rivas; Theodore A Schuman; Robert F Labadie
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 10.  Trends in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.