Literature DB >> 21168479

Relationship between gap detection thresholds and loudness in cochlear-implant users.

Soha N Garadat1, Bryan E Pfingst.   

Abstract

Gap detection threshold (GDT) is a commonly used measure of temporal acuity in cochlear-implant (CI) recipients. This measure, like other measures of temporal acuity, shows considerable variation across subjects and also varies across stimulation sites within subjects. The aims of this study were (1) to determine whether across-site variation in GDTs would be reduced or maintained with increased stimulation levels; (2) to determine whether across-site variation in GDTs at low stimulation levels was related to differences in loudness percepts at those same levels; and (3) to determine whether matching loudness levels could reduce across-site differences in GDTs. Thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels were measured in postlingually deaf adults using all available sites in their electrode arrays. All sites were then surveyed at 30% of the dynamic range (DR) to examine across-site variation. Two sites with the largest difference in GDTs were then selected and for those two sites GDTs were measured at multiple levels of the DR (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90%). Stimuli consisted of 500 ms trains of symmetric-biphasic pulses, 40 μs/phase, presented at a rate of 1000 pps using a monopolar (MP1+2) electrode configuration. To examine perceptual differences in loudness, the selected sites were loudness-matched at the same levels of the DR. Variations in GDTs and loudness patterns were observed across stimulation sites and across subjects. Variations in GDTs across sites tended to decrease with increasing stimulation levels. For the majority of the subjects, stimuli at a given level in %DR were perceived louder at sites with better GDTs than those presented at the same level in %DR at sites with poorer GDTs. These results suggest that loudness is a contributing factor to across-site variation in GDTs and that CI fittings based on more detailed loudness matching could reduce across-site variation and improve perceptual acuity.
Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21168479      PMCID: PMC3095680          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.12.011

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


  38 in total

1.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Temporal-gap detection by cochlear prosthesis users.

Authors:  J P Preece; R S Tyler
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1989-12

3.  Gap detection with sinusoids and noise in normal, impaired, and electrically stimulated ears.

Authors:  B C Moore; B R Glasberg
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Comparison of percepts found with cochlear implant devices.

Authors:  C G Müller
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.691

6.  Modulation detection by patients with eighth-nerve tumors.

Authors:  C Formby
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1986-09

7.  External electrical stimulation of the cochlea: clinical, psychophysical, speech-perceptual and histological findings.

Authors:  A J Fourcin; S M Rosen; B C Moore; E E Douek; G P Clarke; H Dodson; L H Bannister
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1979-08

8.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics.

Authors:  R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Auditory temporal resolution and open speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  C Muchnik; R Taitelbaum; S Tene; M Hildesheimer
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1994

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

Authors:  John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-02-03       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  22 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  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

4.  Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to spatial selectivity.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Age-Related Changes in Temporal Resolution Revisited: Electrophysiological and Behavioral Findings From Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Bruna S S Mussoi; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2019 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 7.  Cochlear infrastructure for electrical hearing.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Sara A Bowling; Deborah J Colesa; Soha N Garadat; Yehoash Raphael; Seiji B Shibata; Stefan B Strahl; Gina L Su; Ning Zhou
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Discrimination of Stochastic Frequency Modulation by Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Stanley Sheft; Min-Yu Cheng; Valeriy Shafiro
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 1.664

9.  The Relationship Between Intensity Coding and Binaural Sensitivity in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Behavioral Measures of Temporal Processing and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Chelsea Blankenship; Fawen Zhang; Robert Keith
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.