Literature DB >> 17160638

The effect of Gaussian noise on the threshold, dynamic range, and loudness of analogue cochlear implant stimuli.

Robert P Morse1, Peter F Morse, Terry B Nunn, Karen A M Archer, Patrick Boyle.   

Abstract

The deliberate addition of Gaussian noise to cochlear implant signals has previously been proposed to enhance the time coding of signals by the cochlear nerve. Potentially, the addition of an inaudible level of noise could also have secondary benefits: it could lower the threshold to the information-bearing signal, and by desynchronization of nerve discharges, it could increase the level at which the information-bearing signal becomes uncomfortable. Both these effects would lead to an increased dynamic range, which might be expected to enhance speech comprehension and make the choice of cochlear implant compression parameters less critical (as with a wider dynamic range, small changes in the parameters would have less effect on loudness). The hypothesized secondary effects were investigated with eight users of the Clarion cochlear implant; the stimulation was analogue and monopolar. For presentations in noise, noise at 95% of the threshold level was applied simultaneously and independently to all the electrodes. The noise was found in two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) experiments to decrease the threshold to sinusoidal stimuli (100 Hz, 1 kHz, 5 kHz) by about 2.0 dB and increase the dynamic range by 0.7 dB. Furthermore, in 2AFC loudness balance experiments, noise was found to decrease the loudness of moderate to intense stimuli. This suggests that loudness is partially coded by the degree of phase-locking of cochlear nerve fibers. The overall gain in dynamic range was modest, and more complex noise strategies, for example, using inhibition between the noise sources, may be required to get a clinically useful benefit.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17160638      PMCID: PMC2538414          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-006-0064-5

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


  34 in total

1.  Suprathreshold stochastic resonance in multilevel threshold systems

Authors: 
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  2000-03-13       Impact factor: 9.161

2.  Noise improves suprathreshold discrimination in cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Shahdad E Behnam; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  F G Zeng; J J Galvin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Phase-locking of auditory-nerve discharges to sinusoidal electric stimulation of the cochlea.

Authors:  S B Dynes; B Delgutte
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Louder sounds can produce less forward masking: effects of component phase in complex tones.

Authors:  Hedwig Gockel; Brian C J Moore; Roy D Patterson; Ray Meddis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; B S Wilson; C C Finley; P J Abbas
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Distribution of short-term rms levels in conversational speech.

Authors:  R M Cox; J S Matesich; J N Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Intensity discrimination: a severe departure from Weber's law.

Authors:  R P Carlyon; B C Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man.

Authors:  D K Eddington; W H Dobelle; D E Brackmann; M G Mladejovsky; J L Parkin
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1978 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.547

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Stochastic facilitation of artificial tactile sensation in primates.

Authors:  Leonel E Medina; Mikhail A Lebedev; Joseph E O'Doherty; Miguel A L Nicolelis
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-10-10       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Effects of high-rate pulse trains on electrode discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Christina L Runge-Samuelson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-06

Review 4.  Enhanced brainstem phase-locking in low-level noise reveals stochastic resonance in the frequency-following response (FFR).

Authors:  Bhanu Shukla; Gavin M Bidelman
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 3.252

Review 5.  What is stochastic resonance? Definitions, misconceptions, debates, and its relevance to biology.

Authors:  Mark D McDonnell; Derek Abbott
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  Modeling electrical stimulation of retinal ganglion cell with optimizing additive noises for reducing threshold and energy consumption.

Authors:  Jing Wu; Menghua Jin; Qingli Qiao
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.819

Review 7.  Use of Research Interfaces for Psychophysical Studies With Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Alan Kan; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.