Literature DB >> 17351713

An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Michael F Dorman1, Tony Spahr, Rene Gifford, Louise Loiselle, Sharon McKarns, Timothy Holden, Margaret Skinner, Charles Finley.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to relate the pitch of high-rate electrical stimulation delivered to individual cochlear implant electrodes to electrode insertion depth and insertion angle. The patient (CH1) was able to provide pitch matches between electric and acoustic stimulation because he had auditory thresholds in his nonimplanted ear ranging between 30 and 60 dB HL over the range, 250 Hz to 8 kHz. Electrode depth and insertion angle were measured from high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scans of the patient's temporal bones. The scans were used to create a 3D image volume reconstruction of the cochlea, which allowed visualization of electrode position within the scala. The method of limits was used to establish pitch matches between acoustic pure tones and electric stimulation (a 1,652-pps, unmodulated, pulse train). The pitch matching data demonstrated that, for insertion angles of greater than 450 degrees or greater than approximately 20 mm insertion depth, pitch saturated at approximately 420 Hz. From 20 to 15 mm insertion depth pitch estimates were about one-half octave lower than the Greenwood function. From 13 to 3 mm insertion depth the pitch estimates were approximately one octave lower than the Greenwood function. The pitch match for an electrode only 3.4 mm into the cochlea was 3,447 Hz. These data are consistent with other reports, e.g., Boëx et al. (2006), of a frequency-to-place map for the electrically stimulated cochlea in which perceived pitches for stimulation on individual electrodes are significantly lower than those predicted by the Greenwood function for stimulation at the level of the hair cell.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17351713      PMCID: PMC2441831          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-007-0071-1

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


  22 in total

1.  The biomedical imaging resource at Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  R A Robb
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Contralateral masking in cochlear implant users with residual hearing in the non-implanted ear.

Authors:  C James; P Blamey; J K Shallop; P V Incerti; A M Nicholas
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Adaptation by a cochlear-implant patient to upward shifts in the frequency representation of speech.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Darlene Ketten
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-05

6.  Binaural benefits for adults who use hearing aids and cochlear implants in opposite ears.

Authors:  Teresa Y C Ching; Paula Incerti; Mandy Hill
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later.

Authors:  D D Greenwood
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss.

Authors:  C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.538

9.  Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.

Authors:  Colette Boëx; Lionel Baud; Grégoire Cosendai; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-02-01

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
  32 in total

1.  Current and planned cochlear implant research at New York University Laboratory for Translational Auditory Research.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Matthew B Fitzgerald; Arlene Neuman; Elad Sagi; Chin-Tuan Tan; Darlene Ketten; Brett Martin
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Improving melody recognition in cochlear implant recipients through individualized frequency map fitting.

Authors:  Walter Di Nardo; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Francesca Cianfrone; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2010-07-16       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Considerations for design of future cochlear implant electrode arrays: electrode array stiffness, size, and depth of insertion.

Authors:  Stephen J Rebscher; Alexander Hetherington; Ben Bonham; Peter Wardrop; David Whinney; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Rehabil Res Dev       Date:  2008

4.  Detection and rate discrimination of amplitude modulation in electrical hearing.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Cherish Oberzut
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; David M Landsberger; Paul H Van de Heyning; Maurits Voormolen; Andrea Kleine Punte; Reinhold Schatzer; Clemens Zierhofer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Pitch adaptation patterns in bimodal cochlear implant users: over time and after experience.

Authors:  Lina A J Reiss; Rindy A Ito; Jessica L Eggleston; Selena Liao; Jillian J Becker; Carrie E Lakin; Frank M Warren; Sean O McMenomey
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Radiologic and functional evaluation of electrode dislocation from the scala tympani to the scala vestibuli in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  N Fischer; L Pinggera; V Weichbold; D Dejaco; J Schmutzhard; G Widmann
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Preliminary results of the relationship between the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and interaural pitch comparisons in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Shuman He; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Simulating the effects of spread of electric excitation on musical tuning and melody identification with a cochlear implant.

Authors:  Anthony J Spahr; Leonid M Litvak; Michael F Dorman; Ashley R Bohanan; Lakshmi N Mishra
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 10.  Cochlear implants: system design, integration, and evaluation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Stephen Rebscher; William Harrison; Xiaoan Sun; Haihong Feng
Journal:  IEEE Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-11-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.