Literature DB >> 20058980

Forward-masking patterns produced by symmetric and asymmetric pulse shapes in electric hearing.

Olivier Macherey1, Astrid van Wieringen, Robert P Carlyon, Ingeborg Dhooge, Jan Wouters.   

Abstract

Two forward-masking experiments were conducted with six cochlear implant listeners to test whether asymmetric pulse shapes would improve the place-specificity of stimulation compared to symmetric ones. The maskers were either cathodic-first symmetric biphasic, pseudomonophasic (i.e., with a second anodic phase longer and lower in amplitude than the first phase), or "delayed pseudomonophasic" (identical to pseudomonophasic but with an inter-phase gap) stimuli. In experiment 1, forward-masking patterns for monopolar maskers were obtained by keeping each masker fixed on a middle electrode of the array and measuring the masked thresholds of a monopolar signal presented on several other electrodes. The results were very variable, and no difference between pulse shapes was found. In experiment 2, six maskers were used in a wide bipolar (bipolar+9) configuration: the same three pulse shapes as in experiment 1, either cathodic-first relative to the most apical or relative to the most basal electrode of the bipolar channel. The pseudomonophasic masker showed a stronger excitation proximal to the electrode of the bipolar pair for which the short, high-amplitude phase was anodic. However, no difference was obtained with the symmetric and, more surprisingly, with the delayed pseudomonophasic maskers. Implications for cochlear implant design are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20058980      PMCID: PMC3000474          DOI: 10.1121/1.3257231

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


  54 in total

1.  Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

Authors:  L M Friesen; R V Shannon; D Baskent; X Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Extracellular stimulation of central neurons: influence of stimulus waveform and frequency on neuronal output.

Authors:  Cameron C McIntyre; Warren M Grill
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Astrid van Wieringen; John M Deeks; Christopher J Long; Johannes Lyzenga; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Optimizing the clinical fit of auditory brain stem implants.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Ian Nimmo-Smith; David M Baguley; Martin O'Driscoll; Richard Ramsden; Steven R Otto; Patrick R Axon; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Excitation of central nervous system neurons by nonuniform electric fields.

Authors:  C C McIntyre; W M Grill
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.033

7.  Single fiber mapping of spatial excitation patterns in the electrically stimulated auditory nerve.

Authors:  C van den Honert; P H Stypulkowski
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Stimulus parameters governing confusion effects in forward masking.

Authors:  D L Neff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Auditory prosthesis with a penetrating nerve array.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks; Russell L Snyder
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-30

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
  15 in total

1.  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

2.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

3.  The polarity sensitivity of the electrically stimulated human auditory nerve measured at the level of the brainstem.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Robert P Carlyon; Jan Wouters; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-03-12

4.  Characterizing Polarity Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Demographic Effects and Potential Implications for Estimating Neural Health.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-06

5.  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

6.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Physiological Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  Extending the limits of place and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-11-30

8.  Effect of Pulse Rate and Polarity on the Sensitivity of Auditory Brainstem and Cochlear Implant Users to Electrical Stimulation.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-03

Review 9.  Procedural Factors That Affect Psychophysical Measures of Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Stefano Cosentino; John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Evaluation of a cochlear-implant processing strategy incorporating phantom stimulation and asymmetric pulses.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Jolijn Monstrey; John M Deeks; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.