Literature DB >> 14605920

Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Bryan E Pfingst1, Li Xu.   

Abstract

In cochlear implants, variation across stimulation sites in psychophysical detection thresholds (T levels) and maximum comfortable loudness levels (C levels) can be large when narrow-bipolar (BP) stimulation is used. This across-site variation is typically smaller when monopolar (MP) stimulation is used. At least two models can account for across-site variation and the effects of electrode configuration on the magnitude of the variation. According to one model, across-site variation reflects site-to-site differences in the distances between the stimulating electrodes and the sites of action-potential initiation. Under this model, the lower across-site variation with MP stimulation is due to shallower current versus distance gradients. An alternative model assumes that T and C levels depend on integration of activity across the whole population of neurons and that MP stimulation activates neurons over a larger spatial extent than does BP stimulation. If T and C levels are determined by integration of activity across large overlapping populations of neurons, then their values at adjacent sites should be more similar than if these levels result from integration across smaller, more independent populations. We tested the models by examining the effects on across-site variation of three variables believed to affect the spatial extent of activation: electrode configuration, stimulus level within the dynamic range, and electrode-array design. T levels and C levels were measured in 13 subjects with Nucleus CI24M (straight array) and 9 subjects with Nucleus CI24R(CS) (Contour) cochlear implants using bipolar (BP) and monopolar (MP) electrode configurations. Site-to-site variation in T and C levels for BP stimulation was 2.1-3.3 times larger than that for MP stimulation. Contrary to the across-neuron integration hypothesis, no significant differences were found between across-site variation for T levels and that for C levels for the BP configuration. There was considerable overlap in site-to-site variation values for the two types of implants but mean site-to-site variation in C levels for CI24M implants was significantly lower than that for CI24R(CS) implants. Control studies suggested that these results were not an artifact of the scale, and not due to differences in inherent variability of the psychophysical measures, or to the method of quantifying across-site variation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14605920      PMCID: PMC2538372          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-003-3051-0

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


  24 in total

1.  The effects of stochastic neural activity in a model predicting intensity perception with cochlear implants: low-rate stimulation.

Authors:  I C Bruce; M W White; L S Irlicht; S J O'Leary; G M Clark
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents.

Authors:  A Kral; R Hartmann; D Mortazavi; R Klinke
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor.

Authors:  K E Fishman; R V Shannon; W H Slattery
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 2.297

6.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B E Pfingst; T A Zwolan; L A Holloway
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  J B Nadol
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.497

10.  The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou; J Fitzke; Z Tu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  35 in total

1.  Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 1.854

2.  Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Deborah J Colesa; Sheena Hembrador; Stephen Y Kang; John C Middlebrooks; Yehoash Raphael; Gina L Su
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

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

4.  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

5.  Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-08-05       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Using evoked potentials to match interaural electrode pairs with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Zachary M Smith; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-17

7.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Gail S Donaldson; Heather Kreft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Strong correlations between sensitivity and variability give rise to constant discrimination thresholds across the otolith afferent population.

Authors:  Mohsen Jamali; Jerome Carriot; Maurice J Chacron; Kathleen E Cullen
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-03       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.