Literature DB >> 19450432

Influence of stimulation rate and loudness growth on modulation detection and intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.

John J Galvin1, Qian-Jie Fu.   

Abstract

In cochlear implants (CIs), increasing the stimulation rate typically increases the electric dynamic range (DR), mostly by reducing audibility thresholds. While CI users' intensity resolution has been shown to be fairly constant across stimulation rates, high rates have been shown to weaken modulation sensitivity, especially at low listening levels. In this study, modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were measured in five CI users for a range of stimulation rates (250-2000 pulses per second) and modulation frequencies (5-100 Hz) at 8 stimulation levels that spanned the DR (loudness-balanced across stimulation rates). Intensity difference limens (IDLs) were measured for the same stimulation rates and levels used for modulation detection. For all modulation frequencies, modulation sensitivity was generally poorer at low levels and at higher stimulation rates. CI users were sensitive to modulation frequency only at relatively high levels. Similarly, IDLs were poorer at low levels and at high stimulation rates. When compared directly in terms of relative amplitude, IDLs were generally better than MDTs at low levels. Differences in loudness growth between dynamic and steady stimuli might explain level-dependent differences between MDTs and IDLs. The slower loudness growth associated with high stimulation rates might explain the poorer MDTs and IDLs with high rates. In general, high stimulation rates provided no advantage in intensity resolution and a disadvantage in modulation sensitivity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19450432      PMCID: PMC5844469          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2009.01.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  31 in total

1.  Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Intensity discrimination and detection of amplitude modulation.

Authors:  M Wojtczak; N F Viemeister
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Speech recognition by normal-hearing and cochlear implant listeners as a function of intensity resolution.

Authors:  P C Loizou; M Dorman; O Poroy; T Spahr
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  F G Zeng; J J Galvin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effects of pulse rate and electrode array design on intensity discrimination in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Gail S Donaldson; David A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  Loudness of dynamic stimuli in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  C Zhang; F G Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+.

Authors:  S M Brill; W Gstöttner; J Helms; C von Ilberg; W Baumgartner; J Müller; J Kiefer
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

9.  Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues.

Authors:  R V Shannon; F G Zeng; V Kamath; J Wygonski; M Ekelid
Journal:  Science       Date:  1995-10-13       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Temporal representations with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; M Zerbi
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11
View more
  32 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.  Improved electrically evoked auditory steady-state response thresholds in humans.

Authors:  Michael Hofmann; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-05-09

5.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-02

7.  Effects of stimulus duration on amplitude modulation processing with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Acoustic temporal modulation detection and speech perception in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Kaibao Nie; Elyse M Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  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

10.  Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Susannah Dixon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.