Literature DB >> 21730858

Preliminary results of the relationship between the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and interaural pitch comparisons in bilateral cochlear implant recipients.

Shuman He1, Carolyn J Brown, Paul J Abbas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: : The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between electrophysiologic measures of the binaural interaction component (BIC) of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response and psychophysical measures of interaural pitch comparisons in Nucleus bilateral cochlear implant users.
DESIGN: : Data were collected for 10 postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. Each subject conducted an interaural pitch-comparison task using a biphasic pulse train with a pulse rate of 1000 pulses per second (pps) at high stimulation levels. Stimuli were presented in a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice procedure with roving current variations. A subgroup of four subjects repeated the task at low stimulation levels. BICs were measured using loudness balanced, biphasic current pulses presented at a rate of 19.9 pps for each subject by pairing the electrode 12 (out of 22 intracochlear electrodes) in the right ear with each of 11 electrodes spaced across the electrode array in the left ear. The BIC was measured at high stimulation levels in 10 subjects and at low stimulation levels in 7 subjects. Because of differences in stimulation rate used in BIC measures and interaural pitch comparisons, the actual stimulation levels were different in these two measures. The relationship between BIC responses and results of interaural pitch comparisons was evaluated for each of the individual subjects and at the group level. Evaluation was carried out separately for results obtained at high and low stimulation levels.
RESULTS: : There was no significant correlation between results of BIC measures and interaural pitch comparisons on either the individual or group levels. Lower stimulation level did not improve the relationship between these two measures.
CONCLUSIONS: : No significant correlations between psychophysical measures of interaural pitch comparisons and electrophysiologic measures of the BIC of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response were found. The lack of correlation may be attributed to methods used to quantify the data, small number of subjects retested at low stimulation levels, and central processing components involved in the interaural pitch-comparison task.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21730858      PMCID: PMC3193893          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31822519ef

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


  52 in total

1.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Electro-acoustic stimulation. Acoustic and electric pitch comparisons.

Authors:  Hugh McDermott; Catherine Sucher; Andrea Simpson
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.

Authors:  Peter A Busby; Rolf D Battmer; Joerg Pesch
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  The intensity-pitch relation revisited: monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation.

Authors:  Christoph Arnoldner; Dominik Riss; Alexandra Kaider; Alois Mair; Jens Wagenblast; Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner; Wolfgang Gstöttner; Jafar-Sasan Hamzavi
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Electrode discrimination and speech perception in young children using cochlear implants.

Authors:  P W Dawson; C M McKay; P A Busby; D B Grayden; G M Clark
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Auditory brain stem responses evoked by lateralized clicks: is lateralization extracted in the human brain stem?

Authors:  Helmut Riedel; Birger Kollmeier
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Effects of stimulation level and electrode pairing on the binaural interaction component of the electrically evoked auditory brain stem response.

Authors:  Shuman He; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Pitch comparisons between electrical stimulation of a cochlear implant and acoustic stimuli presented to a normal-hearing contralateral ear.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Johan H M Frijns; Patrick R Axon; Randy K Kalkman; Patrick Boyle; David M Baguley; John Briggs; John M Deeks; Jeroen J Briaire; Xavier Barreau; René Dauman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-06-05
View more
  11 in total

1.  Neural Processing of Acoustic and Electric Interaural Time Differences in Normal-Hearing Gerbils.

Authors:  Maike Vollmer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Effects of interaural pitch matching and auditory image centering on binaural sensitivity in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Self-Selection of Frequency Tables with Bilateral Mismatches in an Acoustic Simulation of a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Matthew B Fitzgerald; Ksenia Prosolovich; Chin-Tuan Tan; E Katelyn Glassman; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  Between-ear sound frequency disparity modulates a brain stem biomarker of binaural hearing.

Authors:  Andrew D Brown; Kelsey L Anbuhl; Jesse I Gilmer; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Computed-Tomography Estimates of Interaural Mismatch in Insertion Depth and Scalar Location in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Jack H Noble; Sandeep A Phatak; Elizabeth Kolberg; Miranda Cleary; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Kenneth K Jensen; Michael Hoa; Hung Jeffrey Kim; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.619

Review 6.  Bilateral cochlear implants in children: Effects of auditory experience and deprivation on auditory perception.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Karen Gordon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-01-30       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Investigating interaural frequency-place mismatches via bimodal vowel integration.

Authors:  François Guérit; Sébastien Santurette; Josef Chalupper; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2014-11-23       Impact factor: 3.293

8.  Normative Study of the Binaural Interaction Component of the Human Auditory Brainstem Response as a Function of Interaural Time Differences.

Authors:  Carol A Sammeth; Nathaniel T Greene; Andrew D Brown; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

9.  Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Hongmei Hu; Mathias Dietz
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.293

10.  Neural Representation of Interaural Time Differences in Humans-an Objective Measure that Matches Behavioural Performance.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Nick R Haywood; Torsten Marquardt; David McAlpine
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-09-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.