Literature DB >> 16715356

Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate.

Olivier Macherey1, Astrid van Wieringen, Robert P Carlyon, John M Deeks, Jan Wouters.   

Abstract

Existing cochlear implants stimulate the auditory nerve with trains of symmetric biphasic (BP) pulses. Recent data have shown that modifying the pulse shape, while maintaining charge balance, may be beneficial in terms of reducing power consumption, increasing dynamic range, and limiting channel interactions. We measured thresholds and most comfortable levels (MCLs) for various 99-pulses-per-second (pps) stimuli. "Pseudomonophasic (PS)" pulses consist of a brief phase of one polarity followed immediately by a longer and lower-amplitude phase of the opposite polarity. We focused on a novel variant of PS pulses, termed the "delayed pseudomonophasic (DPS)" stimulus, in which the longer phase is presented midway between the short phases of two consecutive pulses. DPS pulse trains produced thresholds that were more than 10 dB lower than those obtained with BP pulses. This reduction was much greater than the 0- to 3-dB drop obtained with PS pulses and was still more than 6 dB when a pulse rate of 892 pps was used. A study of the relative contributions of the two phases of DPS suggested that the short, high-amplitude phase dominated the perceived loudness. This study showed major threshold and MCL reductions using a DPS stimulus compared to the widely used BP stimulus. These reductions, which were predicted by a simple linear filter model, might lead to considerable power savings if implemented in a cochlear implant speech processor.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16715356      PMCID: PMC2504608          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-006-0040-0

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


  36 in total

1.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; E Javel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation.

Authors:  C A Miller; P J Abbas; B K Robinson; J T Rubinstein; A J Matsuoka
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  A flexible auditory research platform using acoustic or electric stimuli for adults and young children.

Authors:  Johan Laneau; Bart Boets; Marc Moonen; Astrid van Wieringen; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Excitation of central nervous system neurons by nonuniform electric fields.

Authors:  C C McIntyre; W M Grill
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  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

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.  Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Paul J Abbas; Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Barbara K Robinson; Kirill V Nourski; Fuh-Cherng Jeng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Axons, but not cell bodies, are activated by electrical stimulation in cortical gray matter. II. Evidence from selective inactivation of cell bodies and axon initial segments.

Authors:  L G Nowak; J Bullier
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation.

Authors:  C A Miller; P J Abbas; J T Rubinstein; B K Robinson; A J Matsuoka; G Woodworth
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  51 in total

1.  In vivo microstimulation with cathodic and anodic asymmetric waveforms modulates spatiotemporal calcium dynamics in cortical neuropil and pyramidal neurons of male mice.

Authors:  Kevin C Stieger; James R Eles; Kip A Ludwig; Takashi D Y Kozai
Journal:  J Neurosci Res       Date:  2020-06-26       Impact factor: 4.164

2.  What Can be Learned from the Time Course of Changes in Low-Frequency Stimulated Muscle?

Authors:  Dirk Pette
Journal:  Eur J Transl Myol       Date:  2017-06-24

3.  A multichannel semicircular canal neural prosthesis using electrical stimulation to restore 3-d vestibular sensation.

Authors:  Charles C Della Santina; Americo A Migliaccio; Amit H Patel
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.538

4.  Penetrating electrode stimulation of the rabbit optic nerve: parameters and effects on evoked cortical potentials.

Authors:  Jingjing Sun; Yao Chen; Xinyu Chai; Qiushi Ren; Liming Li
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-08       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Effects of Stimulus Polarity and Artifact Reduction Method on the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sangsook Choi; Erin Glickman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Cancellation of nerve excitation by the reversal of nanosecond stimulus polarity and its relevance to the gating time of sodium channels.

Authors:  Maura Casciola; Shu Xiao; Francesca Apollonio; Alessandra Paffi; Micaela Liberti; Claudia Muratori; Andrei G Pakhomov
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 9.261

8.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

9.  The effect of polarity order and electrode-activation order on loudness in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  A CMOS Neural Interface for a Multichannel Vestibular Prosthesis.

Authors:  Kristin N Hageman; Zaven K Kalayjian; Francisco Tejada; Bryce Chiang; Mehdi A Rahman; Gene Y Fridman; Chenkai Dai; Philippe O Pouliquen; Julio Georgiou; Charles C Della Santina; Andreas G Andreou
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 3.833

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.