Literature DB >> 19173412

Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants.

Michelle L Hughes1, Lisa J Stille.   

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) can be used to predict psychophysical electrical-field interaction patterns obtained with simultaneous stimulation of intracochlear electrodes. The second goal was to determine whether ECAP patterns are affected by recording location because differences might influence the relation between ECAP and psychophysical measures. The third goal was to investigate whether symmetrical threshold shifts are produced with phase inversion of the interaction stimulus. Nine adults with Advanced Bionics cochlear implants participated. ECAP and psychophysical thresholds were obtained for basal, middle, and apical probe electrodes in the presence of a subthreshold interaction stimulus delivered simultaneously to each of seven to eight interaction electrodes per probe. The results showed highly significant correlations between ECAP and psychophysical threshold shifts for all nine subjects, which suggests that the ECAP can adequately predict psychophysical electrical-field interaction patterns for subthreshold stimuli. ECAP thresholds were significantly higher for recordings from the basal (versus apical) side of the probe, which suggests that recording location may affect relations between ECAP and psychophysical measures. Interaction stimulus phase inversion generally produced symmetrical threshold shifts for psychophysical measures but not for half of ECAP measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19173412      PMCID: PMC2633105          DOI: 10.1121/1.3035842

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


  28 in total

1.  Cortical responses to cochlear implant stimulation: channel interactions.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-10-20

2.  Electrical field interactions in different cochlear implant systems.

Authors:  Colette Boëx; Chloé de Balthasar; Maria-Izabel Kós; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen; Elaine Saunders; Louise M Richardson
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  Pitch perception by cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  B Townshend; N Cotter; D Van Compernolle; R L White
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

7.  Multichannel cochlear implants. Channel interactions and processor design.

Authors:  M W White; M M Merzenich; J N Gardi
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol       Date:  1984-08

8.  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

9.  Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging.

Authors:  Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; Jan A P M de Laat; Jan J Grote
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon; Astrid van Wieringen; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-02-21
View more
  17 in total

1.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Adam M Goulson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Spatial tuning curves from apical, middle, and basal electrodes in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Heather A Kreft; Elizabeth S Anderson; Gail S Donaldson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Comparing spatial tuning curves, spectral ripple resolution, and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Anderson; David A Nelson; Heather Kreft; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Kendra K Schmid
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Auditory enhancement and the role of spectral resolution in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

8.  Initial Results With Image-guided Cochlear Implant Programming in Children.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Andrea J Hedley-Williams; Linsey Sunderhaus; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Stephen M Camarata; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 3.208

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.