Literature DB >> 12742240

Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking.

Lawrence T Cohen1, Louise M Richardson, Elaine Saunders, Robert S C Cowan.   

Abstract

This study introduces and evaluates a method for measurement of the longitudinal spread of electrically evoked neural excitation in the cochlea, using the Neural Response Telemetry system (NRT) available with the Nucleus((R)) 24 cochlear implant system. The recently released version of the NRT software (version 3.0) enables presentation of the 'masker' and 'probe' on different electrodes. In the present method the probe position was fixed, while the masker position was varied across the electrode array. The amplitude of the response to the partially masked probe provides a measure of the amount of masking, which is dependent on the extent of overlap of the excitation regions of the masker and probe. These measurements were performed in seven subjects implanted with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system (four with straight and three with Contour electrode arrays), for basal, middle and apical probe electrodes. Similar excitation profiles were obtained using either the standard NRT subtraction paradigm or an alternative 'Miller' method. The excitation profiles were compared with those obtained from psychophysical forward masking and good agreement was found. The widths of electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and forward masking profiles did not differ significantly. Whereas the width of the ECAP measure was significantly correlated with both the maximum comfortable level and the distance of the electrode band from the modiolus, the width of the forward masking profile was not.

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12742240     DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(03)00096-0

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


  69 in total

1.  Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.

Authors:  Aparajita Bhattacharya; Andrew Vandali; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

3.  Using temporal modulation sensitivity to select stimulation sites for processor MAPs in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Steven M Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ching-Chih Wu; Xin Luo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-12-21

Review 7.  [Intra- and postoperative electrophysiological diagnostics].

Authors:  T Wesarg; S Arndt; A Aschendorff; R Laszig; R Beck; L Jung; S Zirn
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sarah A Laurello
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Adam M Goulson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Modelling encapsulation tissue around cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  T Hanekom
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.602

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.