Literature DB >> 21682413

Effects of electrode configuration on cochlear implant modulation detection thresholds.

Bryan E Pfingst1.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant function, as assessed by psychophysical measures, varies from one stimulation site to another within a patient's cochlea. This suggests that patient performance might be improved by selection of the best-functioning sites for the processor map. In evaluating stimulation sites for such a strategy, electrode configuration is an important variable. Variation across stimulation sites in loudness-related measures (detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels), is much larger for stimulation with bipolar electrode configurations than with monopolar configurations. The current study found that, in contrast to the loudness-related measures, magnitudes of across-site means and the across-site variances of modulation detection thresholds were not dependent on electrode configuration, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying variation in these various psychophysical measures are not all the same. The data presented here suggest that bipolar and monopolar electrode configurations are equally effective in identifying good and poor stimulation sites for modulation detection but that the across-site patterns of modulation detection thresholds are not the same for the two configurations. Therefore, it is recommended to test all stimulation sites using the patient's clinically assigned electrode configuration when performing psychophysical evaluation of a patient's modulation detection acuity to select sites for the processor map.
© 2011 Acoustical Society of America

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21682413      PMCID: PMC3135147          DOI: 10.1121/1.3583543

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


  26 in total

1.  Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies.

Authors:  G S Donaldson; D A Nelson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array.

Authors:  L T Cohen; E Saunders; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen; Louise M Richardson; Elaine Saunders; Robert S C Cowan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  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

5.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration.

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

7.  A relation between electrode discrimination and amplitude modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Jian Yu
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

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

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Cochlear implants: a remarkable past and a brilliant future.

Authors:  Blake S Wilson; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-22       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-09-16       Impact factor: 1.837

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.

Authors:  Shefin S George; Mohit N Shivdasani; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 3.  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

4.  Comparison of signal and gap-detection thresholds for focused and broad cochlear implant electrode configurations.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; John M Deeks; Alexander J Billig; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-02-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.