Literature DB >> 17471737

Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants.

Bryan E Pfingst1, Li Xu, Catherine S Thompson.   

Abstract

Most modern cochlear-implant speech processors convey speech-envelope information using amplitude-modulated pulse trains. The use of higher-rate carrier pulse trains allows more envelope detail in the signal. However, neural response properties could limit the efficacy of high-rate carriers. This study examined effects of carrier rate and stimulation site, on psychophysical modulation detection thresholds (MDTs). Both of these variables could affect the neural representation of the carrier and thus affect perception of the modulation. Twelve human subjects with cochlear implants were tested. Phase duration of symmetric biphasic pulses was modulated sinusoidally at 40 Hz. MDTs were determined for monopolar stimulation at two carrier rates [250 and 4000 pulses/s (pps)], three stimulation sites (basal, middle, and apical), and five stimulus levels (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% of the dynamic range). MDTs were lower for 250 pps carriers than for 4000 pps carriers in 71% of the 180 cases studied. Effects of carrier rate were greatest at the apical stimulation site and effects of stimulation site on MDTs depended on carrier rate. The data suggest a distinct disadvantage to using carrier pulse rates as high as 4000 pps. Stimulation site should be considered in evaluating modulation detection ability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17471737      PMCID: PMC2562216          DOI: 10.1121/1.2537501

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


  28 in total

1.  Effect of stimulation rate on phoneme recognition by nucleus-22 cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Marilyn E Demorest
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Sherol Chinchilla; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05-20

4.  Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  P J Blamey; B C Pyman; M Gordon; G M Clark; A M Brown; R C Dowell; R D Hollow
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 1.547

5.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition.

Authors:  D J Van Tasell; S D Soli; V M Kirby; G P Widin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception.

Authors:  R Drullman; J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception.

Authors:  R Drullman; J M Festen; R Plomp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Profound deafness. Associated sensory and neural degeneration.

Authors:  R Hinojosa; J R Lindsay
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol       Date:  1980-04
View more
  39 in total

1.  Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Deborah J Colesa; Sheena Hembrador; Stephen Y Kang; John C Middlebrooks; Yehoash Raphael; Gina L Su
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A point process framework for modeling electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Jay T Rubinstein; Eric Shea-Brown
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

4.  Auditory sensitivity may require dynamically unstable spike generators: evidence from a model of electrical stimulation.

Authors:  David E O'Gorman; H Steven Colburn; Christopher A Shera
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Encoding and decoding amplitude-modulated cochlear implant stimuli--a point process analysis.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Eric Shea-Brown; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 1.621

6.  Processing F0 with cochlear implants: Modulation frequency discrimination and speech intonation recognition.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Shu-Chen Peng
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-23       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection in listeners with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Li Xu; Catherine S Thompson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Qian-Jie Fu; Chao-Gang Wei; Ke-Li Cao
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Jian Yu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.