Literature DB >> 15532657

Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Heather A Kreft1, Gail S Donaldson, David A Nelson.   

Abstract

The effects of pulse rate on intensity discrimination were evaluated in 14 subjects with Clarion C-I cochlear implants. Subjects had a standard [Clarion spiral electrode array (SPRL group)] or perimodiolar electrode array [Clarion HiFocus electrode array with electrode positioning system (HF+EPS group)]. Weber fractions for intensity discrimination [ Wf(dB)= 10 log deltaI/I] were evaluated at five levels over dynamic range at each of three pulse rates (200, 1625 and 6500 pps) using monopolar stimulation. Weber fractions were smaller for 200 pps stimuli than for 1625 or 6500 pps stimuli in both groups. Weber fractions were significantly smaller for SPRL subjects (mean Wf(dB) = -9.1 dB) than for HF+EPS subjects (mean Wf(dB) = -6.7 dB). Intensity difference limens (DLs) expressed as a percentage of dynamic range (DR) (deltaI%DR= deltaI/DRdB* 100) did not vary systematically with pulse rate in either group. Larger intensity DLs combined with smaller dynamic ranges led to fewer intensity steps over the dynamic range for HF+EPS subjects (average 9 steps) compared to SPRL subjects (average 23 steps). The observed effects of pulse rate and electrode array design may stem primarily from an inverse relationship between absolute current amplitude and the size of intensity DLs. The combination of smaller dynamic ranges and larger Weber fractions in HF+EPS subjects could be the result of increased variability of neural outputs in these subjects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15532657     DOI: 10.1121/1.1786871

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


  14 in total

1.  Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant users' phoneme, word and sentence recognition in quiet and in noise.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon; Rachel J Cruz; John J Galvin
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 1.854

2.  Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-09

3.  Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-02

4.  Simultaneous grouping in cochlear implant listeners: can abrupt changes in level be used to segregate components from a complex tone?

Authors:  Huw R Cooper; Brian Roberts
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-14

5.  Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp; Matthew J Goupell; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Intensity coding in electric hearing: effects of electrode configurations and stimulation waveforms.

Authors:  Tiffany Elise H Chua; Mark Bachman; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effect of Pulse Rate on Loudness Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-03-12

9.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation.

Authors:  Cecil A Lozano; Kurt A Kaczmarek; Marco Santello
Journal:  Somatosens Mot Res       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.111

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.