Literature DB >> 20090533

Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.

Julie Arenberg Bierer1, Kathleen F Faulkner.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of a threshold measure, made with a restricted electrode configuration, to identify channels exhibiting relatively poor spatial selectivity. With a restricted electrode configuration, channel-to-channel variability in threshold may reflect variations in the interface between the electrodes and auditory neurons (i.e., nerve survival, electrode placement, and tissue impedance). These variations in the electrode-neuron interface should also be reflected in psychophysical tuning curve (PTC) measurements. Specifically, it is hypothesized that high single-channel thresholds obtained with the spatially focused partial tripolar (pTP) electrode configuration are predictive of wide or tip-shifted PTCs.
DESIGN: Data were collected from five cochlear implant listeners implanted with the HiRes90k cochlear implant (Advanced Bionics Corp., Sylmar, CA). Single-channel thresholds and most comfortable listening levels were obtained for stimuli that varied in presumed electrical field size by using the pTP configuration for which a fraction of current (sigma) from a center-active electrode returns through two neighboring electrodes and the remainder through a distant indifferent electrode. Forward-masked PTCs were obtained for channels with the highest, lowest, and median tripolar (sigma = 1 or 0.9) thresholds. The probe channel and level were fixed and presented with either the monopolar (sigma = 0) or a more focused pTP (sigma > or = 0.55) configuration. The masker channel and level were varied, whereas the configuration was fixed to sigma = 0.5. A standard, three-interval, two-alternative forced choice procedure was used for thresholds and masked levels.
RESULTS: Single-channel threshold and variability in threshold across channels systematically increased as the compensating current, sigma, increased and the presumed electrical field became more focused. Across subjects, channels with the highest single-channel thresholds, when measured with a narrow, pTP stimulus, had significantly broader PTCs than the lowest threshold channels. In two subjects, the tips of the tuning curves were shifted away from the probe channel. Tuning curves were also wider for the monopolar probes than with pTP probes for both the highest and lowest threshold channels.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that single-channel thresholds measured with a restricted stimulus can be used to identify cochlear implant channels with poor spatial selectivity. Channels having wide or tip-shifted tuning characteristics would likely not deliver the appropriate spectral information to the intended auditory neurons, leading to suboptimal perception. As a clinical tool, quick identification of impaired channels could lead to patient-specific mapping strategies and result in improved speech and music perception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20090533      PMCID: PMC2836401          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c7daf4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  42 in total

1.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

2.  Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems.

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

3.  Forward masking in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  High-level psychophysical tuning curves: simultaneous masking with different noise bandwidths.

Authors:  D A Nelson; T W Fortune
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1991-04

5.  Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intracochlear electric stimulation.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; Julie A Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-08-12

6.  Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  C de Balthasar; C Boëx; G Cosendai; G Valentini; A Sigrist; M Pelizzone
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

8.  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

9.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings.

Authors:  C van den Honert; P H Stypulkowski
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness.

Authors:  R Hinojosa; M Marion
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.691

View more
  76 in total

1.  Pitch contour identification with combined place and temporal cues using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Encoding pitch contours using current steering.

Authors:  Xin Luo; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 3.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Changing stimulation patterns can change the broadness of contralateral masking functions for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.208

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.