Literature DB >> 18450583

Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex.

John C Middlebrooks1.   

Abstract

In the most commonly used cochlear prosthesis systems, temporal features of sound are signaled by amplitude modulation of constant-rate pulse trains. Several convincing arguments predict that speech reception should be optimized by use of pulse rates > or approximately 2,000 pulses per second (pps) and by use of intracochlear electrode configurations that produce restricted current spread (e.g., bipolar rather than monopolar configurations). Neither of those predictions has been borne out in consistent improvements in speech reception. Neurons in the auditory cortex of anesthetized guinea pigs phase lock to the envelope of sine-modulated electric pulse trains presented through a cochlear implant. The present study used that animal model to quantify the effects of carrier pulse rate, electrode configuration, current level, and modulator wave shape on transmission of temporal information from a cochlear implant to the auditory cortex. Modulation sensitivity was computed using a signal-detection analysis of cortical phase-locking vector strengths. Increasing carrier pulse rate in 1-octave steps from 254 to 4,069 pps resulted in systematic decreases in sensitivity. Comparison of sine- versus square-wave modulator waveforms demonstrated that some, but not all, of the loss of modulation sensitivity at high pulse rates was a result of the decreasing size of pulse-to-pulse current steps at the higher rates. Use of a narrow bipolar electrode configuration, compared with the monopolar configuration, produced a marked decrease in modulation sensitivity. Results from this animal model suggest explanations for the failure of high pulse rates and/or bipolar electrode configurations to produce hoped-for improvements in speech reception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18450583      PMCID: PMC2493502          DOI: 10.1152/jn.01114.2007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  67 in total

1.  Auditory temporal processing: responses to sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tones in the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  B S Krishna; M N Semple
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  The effect of electrode configuration and duration of deafness on threshold and selectivity of responses to intracochlear electrical stimulation.

Authors:  S J Rebscher; R L Snyder; P A Leake
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Spiral ganglion cell site of excitation I: comparison of scala tympani and intrameatal electrode responses.

Authors:  Lianne A Cartee; Charles A Miller; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  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

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.  Neuronal responses in cat primary auditory cortex to electrical cochlear stimulation. II. Repetition rate coding.

Authors:  C E Schreiner; M W Raggio
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear.

Authors:  N Y Kiang; E C Moxon
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1972-10       Impact factor: 1.547

9.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; M Zerbi
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

10.  Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis.

Authors:  P A Busby; L A Whitford; P J Blamey; L M Richardson; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  23 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.  Ability of primary auditory cortical neurons to detect amplitude modulation with rate and temporal codes: neurometric analysis.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Johnson; Pingbo Yin; Kevin N O'Connor; Mitchell L Sutter
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Auditory cortex phase locking to amplitude-modulated cochlear implant pulse trains.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Auditory temporal acuity probed with cochlear implant stimulation and cortical recording.

Authors:  Alana E Kirby; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-11-18       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  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

8.  Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.

Authors:  Shefin S George; Mohit N Shivdasani; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Tinnitus suppression by low-rate electric stimulation and its electrophysiological mechanisms.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Qing Tang; Andrew Dimitrijevic; Arnold Starr; Jannine Larky; Nikolas H Blevins
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-04-05       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.