Literature DB >> 15464301

Pulse rate discrimination with deeply inserted electrode arrays.

Uwe Baumann1, Andrea Nobbe.   

Abstract

Pulse rate difference limen (PRDL) and amplitude modulation difference limen (AMDL) were assessed as a function of base rate and cochlear electrode location in seven (three for AMDL) subjects implanted with the MED-EL COMBI 40+ implant. The MED-EL COMBI 40+ electrode array allows deep insertion of the electrode up to the apex of the cochlea to minimize the rate/place mismatch for pulse rates below 500 pps. A three interval, two alternative forced-choice procedure with feedback was used to measure the difference limen. The base rate was in the range between 200 and 800 pps. The carrier rate for the AMDL measurement was 5081 pps. The PRDL increased with increasing base pulse rate. At 200 pps the average PRDL measured at the apical electrode amounted to 48.7 pps, at 400 pps the average PRDL reached 206.6 pps. No significant difference between PRDL obtained from apical or basal electrodes could be observed. AMDL was higher than PRDL at all tested base rates. The ability to discriminate rate changes is limited to base rates up to about 283 pps. The results indicate that rate changes smaller than a major third do not elicit distinguishable auditory perceptions in electrical hearing. The absence of a difference between apical and basal electrode locations indicates that a reduction of the rate/place mismatch does not improve discrimination performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15464301     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2004.06.008

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


  25 in total

1.  Representations of Time-Varying Cochlear Implant Stimulation in Auditory Cortex of Awake Marmosets (Callithrix jacchus).

Authors:  Luke A Johnson; Charles C Della Santina; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Modulation rate discrimination using half-wave rectified and sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

4.  Training improves cochlear implant rate discrimination on a psychophysical task.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Juliana Mathews; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Neural coding of periodicity in marmoset auditory cortex.

Authors:  Daniel Bendor; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-02-10       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  [Discrimination of musical pitch with cochlear implants].

Authors:  S Haumann; R Mühler; M Ziese; H von Specht
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  Selective electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve activates a pathway specialized for high temporal acuity.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks; Russell L Snyder
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-02-03       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Qian-Jie Fu; Chao-Gang Wei; Ke-Li Cao
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-22       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.