Literature DB >> 15952052

Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects.

Marc D Eisen1, Kevin H Franck.   

Abstract

Multielectrode cochlear implants rely on differential stimulation of the cochlear nerve for presenting the brain with the spectral and timing information required to understand speech. In implant patients, the degree of overlap among cochlear nerve fibers stimulated by the different electrodes constitutes the electrode interaction. Electrode interaction degrades the spectral resolution of the implant's stimulus. We sought to define electrode interaction in a cohort of pediatric cochlear implant subjects as a function of both stimulus intensity and electrode location along the array. The 27 pediatric subjects that completed the study were implanted with either the Clarion Hi-Focus array with or without positioner, the Nucleus 24 Contour array, or the Nucleus 24 Straight array. All but two of the patients had congenital hearing loss, and none of the patients had meningitis prior to the onset of deafness. The cochlear nerve response was measured with the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP). A forward masking protocol was used such that a probe stimulus electrode remained fixed while a preceding masker was moved across the array. Electrode interaction was estimated by measuring the unmasked probe response minus the masked probe response. Three probe locations and three probe intensities were examined for each subject. At all probe locations, electrode interaction increased as probe intensity increased (p < 0.05). Interaction at the basal probe was less than that at either the middle or apical probe locations (p < 0.05), and significant correlation found between probe distance from the basal end of the array and electrode interaction (p < 0.001). These results demonstrate that in this cohort of pediatric subjects, electrode interaction depended on both stimulus intensity and probe location. Implications of these findings on future implant array design and current implant fitting strategies are discussed. The impact of electrode interaction on implant performance is yet to be elucidated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15952052      PMCID: PMC2538331          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-005-5057-2

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


  36 in total

1.  The Clarion electrode positioner: temporal bone studies.

Authors:  J N Fayad; W Luxford; F H Linthicum
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-03

2.  Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's CI24M device.

Authors:  K H Franck; S J Norton
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  A model of a nucleus 24 cochlear implant fitting protocol based on the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential.

Authors:  Kevin H Franck
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  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

5.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen; Louise M Richardson; Elaine Saunders; Robert S C Cowan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  The effect of channel interactions on speech recognition in cochlear implant subjects: predictions from an acoustic model.

Authors:  Chandra S Throckmorton; Leslie M Collins
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Modiolar proximity of three perimodiolar cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  Thomas J Balkany; Adrien A Eshraghi; Nathaniel Yang
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  Electrode discrimination and speech perception in young children using cochlear implants.

Authors:  P W Dawson; C M McKay; P A Busby; D B Grayden; G M Clark
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Opposite actions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor and neurotrophin-3 on firing features and ion channel composition of murine spiral ganglion neurons.

Authors:  Crista L Adamson; Michael A Reid; Robin L Davis
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2002-02-15       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants.

Authors:  J H Frijns; J J Briaire; J J Grote
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Qing Tang; Raul Benítez; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.

Authors:  Ziyan Zhu; Qing Tang; Fan-Gang Zeng; Tian Guan; Datian Ye
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 7.  Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.208

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.  A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity.

Authors:  Lucas H M Mens
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.