Literature DB >> 14587604

Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems.

Colette Boëx1, Chloé de Balthasar, Maria-Izabel Kós, Marco Pelizzone.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate electrical field interactions produced by the stimulation of different types of intracochlear electrodes in 12 adult subjects (three Ineraid, four Clarion S-Series, three S-Series with the electrode positioning system-EPS and two Clarion HiFocus-I with the EPS). Psychophysical measurements were conducted with biphasic stimuli (813 pulse per second, 153.8 micros/phase). "Perturbation" signals (300 ms) were applied to one electrode chosen at the middle of the array and their effects on detection thresholds of "probe" signals (30 ms) were measured on the neighbor basal electrode. Perturbation levels were set below the detection threshold of the perturbation electrode (-2 dB re threshold). Measurements were first conducted for simultaneous stimulation of the probe and of the perturbation electrodes, for monopolar for all subjects and for bipolar stimulus configurations for both Clarion HiFocus-I subjects. The tested Clarion electrodes did not present lower monopolar interactions than the Ineraid electrodes. Nevertheless, considering the shorter distance between electrodes for the Clarion than for the Ineraid, the tested Clarion electrodes might be more selective than the Ineraid. We did not find any significant monopolar electrical field-interaction differences between subjects who received the S-Series array with and without the EPS. We did not find lower interactions for both subjects who received the HiFocus-I array than for subjects who received the S-Series. Electrical field interactions were lower for bipolar than for monopolar configurations for both HiFocus-I subjects. A second set of measurements was conducted for nonsimultaneous stimulation similar to the one used in continuous interleaved sampling sound strategy. These measurements showed that interactions evaluated for simultaneous biphasic stimuli were larger than for nonsimultaneous stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14587604     DOI: 10.1121/1.1610451

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  31 in total

1.  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

2.  Temporal interactions during paired-electrode stimulation in two retinal prosthesis subjects.

Authors:  Alan Horsager; Geoffrey M Boynton; Robert J Greenberg; Ione Fine
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Assessment of Spectral and Temporal Resolution in Cochlear Implant Users Using Psychoacoustic Discrimination and Speech Cue Categorization.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Jong Ho Won; Il Joon Moon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to interaural time differences in the envelope versus the fine structure with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Zachary M Smith; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-02-20       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Binaural sensitivity in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Erica Ehlers; Matthew J Goupell; Yi Zheng; Shelly P Godar; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Automatic localization of closely spaced cochlear implant electrode arrays in clinical CTs.

Authors:  Yiyuan Zhao; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2018-10-08       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  An attempt to improve bilateral cochlear implants by increasing the distance between electrodes and providing complementary information to the two ears.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Shelley A Witt; Camille C Dunn; Ann Perreau; Aaron J Parkinson; Blake S Wilson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.802

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.