Literature DB >> 22225050

Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Bryan E Pfingst1, Deborah J Colesa, Sheena Hembrador, Stephen Y Kang, John C Middlebrooks, Yehoash Raphael, Gina L Su.   

Abstract

Perception of electrical stimuli varies widely across users of cochlear implants and across stimulation sites in individual users. It is commonly assumed that the ability of subjects to detect and discriminate electrical signals is dependent, in part, on conditions in the implanted cochlea, but evidence supporting that hypothesis is sparse. The objective of this study was to define specific relationships between the survival of tissues near the implanted electrodes and the functional responses to electrical stimulation of those electrodes. Psychophysical and neurophysiological procedures were used to assess stimulus detection as a function of pulse rate under the various degrees of cochlear pathology. Cochlear morphology, assessed post-mortem, ranged from near-normal numbers of hair cells, peripheral processes and spiral ganglion cells, to complete absence of hair cells and peripheral processes and small numbers of surviving spiral ganglion cells. The psychophysical and neurophysiological studies indicated that slopes and levels of the threshold versus pulse rate functions reflected multipulse integration throughout the 200 ms pulse train with an additional contribution of interactions between adjacent pulses at high pulse rates. The amount of multipulse integration was correlated with the health of the implanted cochlea with implications for perception of more complex prosthetic stimuli.
© 2011 Acoustical Society of America

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22225050      PMCID: PMC3253597          DOI: 10.1121/1.3651820

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


  32 in total

1.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

2.  Auditory response to intracochlear electric stimuli following furosemide treatment.

Authors:  Ning Hu; Paul J Abbas; Charles A Miller; Barbara K Robinson; Kirill V Nourski; Fuh-Cherng Jeng; Bruce A Abkes; John M Nichols
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  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

4.  Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness.

Authors:  Andrew Botros; Colleen Psarros
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Evoked mechanical responses of isolated cochlear outer hair cells.

Authors:  W E Brownell; C R Bader; D Bertrand; Y de Ribaupierre
Journal:  Science       Date:  1985-01-11       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans.

Authors:  J B Nadol; J Y Shiao; B J Burgess; D R Ketten; D K Eddington; B J Gantz; I Kos; P Montandon; N J Coker; J T Roland; J K Shallop
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.547

7.  Temporal summation of pulsate brain stimulation in normal and deafened cats.

Authors:  G M Gerken
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness.

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

9.  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

10.  Ensemble spontaneous activity in the guinea-pig cochlear nerve.

Authors:  G D Searchfield; D J B Muñoz; P R Thorne
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  37 in total

1.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 3.  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

4.  How electrically evoked compound action potentials in chronically implanted guinea pigs relate to auditory nerve health and electrode impedance.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Deborah J Colesa; Christopher J Buswinka; Andrew M Rabah; Donald L Swiderski; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  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

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.  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

8.  Low-frequency fine-structure cues allow for the online use of lexical stress during spoken-word recognition in spectrally degraded speech.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Alexandra Jesse
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       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.