Literature DB >> 14587605

Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.

Colette Boëx1, Maria-Izabel Kós, Marco Pelizzone.   

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate, from a psychophysical standpoint, the neural spread of excitation produced by the stimulation of different types of intracochlear electrode arrays: the Ineraid, the Clarion S-Series on its own or with the Electrode Positioning System (EPS), and the Clarion HiFocus-I with the EPS. The EPS is an independent silicone part designed to bring the electrode array close to the modiolus. Forward masking was evaluated in 12 adult subjects (3 Ineraid, 4 Clarion S-Series, 3 Clarion S-Series+EPS, 3 HiFocus-I+EPS) by psychophysical experiments conducted using trains of biphasic stimuli (813 pulses per second, 307.6 micros/phase). Masker signals (+8 dB re: threshold, 300 ms) were applied to the most apical electrode. Probe signals (30 ms, 10-ms postmasker) were delivered to more basal electrodes. Masked and unmasked detection thresholds of probe signals were measured. For both Clarion HiFocus-I subjects, measurements were conducted in both monopolar and bipolar stimulus configurations. No major differences were found in forward masking between the different intracochlear electrode arrays tested in the monopolar configuration at suprathreshold levels equivalent to those used in speech-coding strategies, but significant differences were found between subjects. A significant negative correlation also was found between the level of forward masking and the consonant identification performance. These measurements showed that the neural spread of excitation was more restricted in the bipolar configuration than in the monopolar configuration for HiFocus-I subjects. It was found that CIS strategies implemented without using apical electrodes, which showed high levels of masking, could improve consonant identification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14587605     DOI: 10.1121/1.1610452

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


  35 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

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.  Effects of Age and Cochlear Implantation on Spectrally Cued Speech Categorization.

Authors:  Mishaela DiNino; Julie G Arenberg; Anne L R Duchen; Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  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

7.  Current-level discrimination in the context of interleaved, multichannel stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of number of stimulated electrodes, pulse rate, and electrode separation.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-06-21

8.  Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Mathieu Gani; Gregory Valentini; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Colette Boëx
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-11

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.