Literature DB >> 18345841

Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

David A Nelson1, Gail S Donaldson, Heather Kreft.   

Abstract

Forward-masked psychophysical spatial tuning curves (fmSTCs) were measured in twelve cochlear-implant subjects, six using bipolar stimulation (Nucleus devices) and six using monopolar stimulation (Clarion devices). fmSTCs were measured at several probe levels on a middle electrode using a fixed-level probe stimulus and variable-level maskers. The average fmSTC slopes obtained in subjects using bipolar stimulation (3.7 dBmm) were approximately three times steeper than average slopes obtained in subjects using monopolar stimulation (1.2 dBmm). Average spatial bandwidths were about half as wide for subjects with bipolar stimulation (2.6 mm) than for subjects with monopolar stimulation (4.6 mm). None of the tuning curve characteristics changed significantly with probe level. fmSTCs replotted in terms of acoustic frequency, using Greenwood's [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 33, 1344-1356 (1961)] frequency-to-place equation, were compared with forward-masked psychophysical tuning curves obtained previously from normal-hearing and hearing-impaired acoustic listeners. The average tuning characteristics of fmSTCs in electric hearing were similar to the broad tuning observed in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired acoustic listeners at high stimulus levels. This suggests that spatial tuning is not the primary factor limiting speech perception in many cochlear implant users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18345841      PMCID: PMC2432425          DOI: 10.1121/1.2836786

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


  71 in total

1.  Current distributions in the cat cochlea: a modelling and electrophysiological study.

Authors:  S J O'Leary; R C Black; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-10       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Broadened forward-masked tuning curves from intense masking tones: delay-time and probe-level manipulations.

Authors:  D A Nelson; R L Freyman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Tissue impedance and current flow in the implanted ear. Implications for the cochlear prosthesis.

Authors:  F A Spelman; B M Clopton; B E Pfingst
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1982 Sep-Oct

5.  Current distribution measurements within the human cochlea.

Authors:  R C Black; G M Clark; J F Patrick
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 4.538

6.  Current distributions in cochlear stimulation.

Authors:  R C Black; G M Clark; Y C Tong; J F Patrick
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.691

7.  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

8.  A computer interface for psychophysical and speech research with the Nucleus cochlear implant.

Authors:  R V Shannon; D D Adams; R L Ferrel; R L Palumbo; M Grandgenett
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The spiral ganglion and the innervation of the human organ of Corti.

Authors:  H Spoendlin; A Schrott
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1988 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea.

Authors:  H H Lim; Y C Tong; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  57 in total

1.  Evidence of the enhancement effect in electrical stimulation via electrode matching (L).

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Mitchell J Mostardi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

3.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

Review 4.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

5.  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

6.  Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Steven M Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-08-18       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Spatial and temporal effects of interleaved masking in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-06-03

8.  The effect of interaural fluctuation rate on correlation change discrimination.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-11-21

9.  Binaural sensitivity in children who use bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Erica Ehlers; Matthew J Goupell; Yi Zheng; Shelly P Godar; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.840

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.