Literature DB >> 22138630

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

Ziyan Zhu1, Qing Tang, Fan-Gang Zeng, Tian Guan, Datian Ye.   

Abstract

Sharp spatial selectivity is critical to auditory performance, particularly in pitch-related tasks. Most contemporary cochlear implants have employed monopolar stimulation that produces broad electric fields, which presumably contribute to poor pitch and pitch-related performance by implant users. Bipolar or tripolar stimulation can generate focused electric fields but requires higher current to reach threshold and, more interestingly, has not produced any apparent improvement in cochlear-implant performance. The present study addressed this dilemma by measuring psychophysical and physiological spatial selectivity with both broad and focused stimulations in the same cohort of subjects. Different current levels were adjusted by systematically measuring loudness growth for each stimulus, each stimulation mode, and in each subject. Both psychophysical and physiological measures showed that, although focused stimulation produced significantly sharper spatial tuning than monopolar stimulation, it could shift the tuning position or even split the tuning tips. The altered tuning with focused stimulation is interpreted as a result of poor electrode-to-neuron interface in the cochlea, and is suggested to be mainly responsible for the lack of consistent improvement in implant performance. A linear model could satisfactorily quantify the psychophysical and physiological data and derive the tuning width. Significant correlation was found between the individual physiological and psychophysical tuning widths, and the correlation was improved by log-linearly transforming the physiological data to predict the psychophysical data. Because the physiological measure took only one-tenth of the time of the psychophysical measure, the present model is of high clinical significance in terms of predicting and improving cochlear-implant performance.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22138630      PMCID: PMC3277661          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005

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


  82 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.  Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  F G Zeng; R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Psychophysical assessment of spatial spread of excitation in electrical hearing with single and dual electrode contact maskers.

Authors:  J Gertjan Dingemanse; Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects.

Authors:  C S Throckmorton; L M Collins
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Quadrupolar stimulation for Cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data.

Authors:  C N Jolly; F A Spelman; B M Clopton
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.538

7.  Intensity coding in electric hearing: effects of electrode configurations and stimulation waveforms.

Authors:  Tiffany Elise H Chua; Mark Bachman; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology. III. Stereocilia damage and alterations of threshold tuning curves.

Authors:  M C Liberman; L W Dodds
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Within-subjects comparison of the HiRes and Fidelity120 speech processing strategies: speech perception and its relation to place-pitch sensitivity.

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Patricia K Dawson; Lamar Z Borden
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  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

View more
  41 in total

1.  Excitation Patterns of Standard and Steered Partial Tripolar Stimuli in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ching-Chih Wu; Xin Luo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-12-21

Review 2.  Implantable neurotechnologies: electrical stimulation and applications.

Authors:  Sudip Nag; Nitish V Thakor
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.602

3.  Model-based Vestibular Afferent Stimulation: Modular Workflow for Analyzing Stimulation Scenarios in Patient Specific and Statistical Vestibular Anatomy.

Authors:  Michael Handler; Peter P Schier; Karl D Fritscher; Patrik Raudaschl; Lejo Johnson Chacko; Rudolf Glueckert; Rami Saba; Rainer Schubert; Daniel Baumgarten; Christian Baumgartner
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  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

5.  The perception of emotion and focus prosody with varying acoustic cues in cochlear implant simulations with varying filter slopes.

Authors:  Daan J van de Velde; Niels O Schiller; Vincent J van Heuven; Claartje C Levelt; Joost van Ginkel; Mieke Beers; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Kendra K Schmid
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Monica Padilla; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  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

9.  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

10.  Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread-of-excitation using Cochlear's dual-electrode mode.

Authors:  Jenny L Goehring; Donna L Neff; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.