Literature DB >> 20727397

Partial tripolar cochlear implant stimulation: Spread of excitation and forward masking in the inferior colliculus.

Julie Arenberg Bierer1, Steven M Bierer, John C Middlebrooks.   

Abstract

This study examines patterns of neural activity in response to single biphasic electrical pulses, presented alone or following a forward masking pulse train, delivered by a cochlear implant. Recordings were made along the tonotopic axis of the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus (ICC) in ketamine/xylazine anesthetized guinea pigs. The partial tripolar electrode configuration was used, which provided a systematic way to vary the tonotopic extent of ICC activation between monopolar (broad) and tripolar (narrow) extremes while maintaining the same peak of activation. The forward masking paradigm consisted of a 200 ms masker pulse train (1017 pulses per second) followed 10 ms later by a single-pulse probe stimulus; the current fraction of the probe was set to 0 (monopolar), 1 (tripolar), or 0.5 (hybrid), and the fraction of the masker was fixed at 0.5. Forward masking tuning profiles were derived from the amount of masking current required to just suppress the activity produced by a fixed-level probe. These profiles were sharper for more focused probe configurations, approximating the pattern of neural activity elicited by single (non-masked) pulses. The result helps to bridge the gap between previous findings in animals and recent psychophysical data.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20727397      PMCID: PMC2997905          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.08.006

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


  38 in total

1.  Electrode configuration influences action potential initiation site and ensemble stochastic response properties.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Paul J Abbas; Kirill V Nourski; Ning Hu; Barbara K Robinson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Robert S Hong; Jay T Rubinstein; Dan Wehner; David Horn
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  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

4.  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

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.  Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents.

Authors:  A Kral; R Hartmann; D Mortazavi; R Klinke
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Temporal response patterns of single auditory nerve fibers elicited by periodic electrical stimuli.

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

8.  Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness.

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

9.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  HiResolution and conventional sound processing in the HiResolution bionic ear: using appropriate outcome measures to assess speech recognition ability.

Authors:  Dawn Burton Koch; Mary Joe Osberger; Phil Segel; Dorcas Kessler
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

View more
  17 in total

1.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

2.  Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Aditya M Kulkarni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-04

4.  Symmetric Electrode Spanning Narrows the Excitation Patterns of Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Xin Luo; Ching-Chih Wu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-08-25

5.  Effect of carrier bandwidth on integration of simulations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Quentin Mesnildrey; Frédéric Venail; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-04

7.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.

Authors:  Ziyan Zhu; Qing Tang; Fan-Gang Zeng; Tian Guan; Datian Ye
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Jan R Edwards; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.