Literature DB >> 22423718

Place-pitch manipulations with cochlear implants.

Olivier Macherey1, Robert P Carlyon.   

Abstract

Pitch can be conveyed to cochlear implant listeners via both place of excitation and temporal cues. The transmission of place cues may be hampered by several factors, including limitations on the insertion depth and number of implanted electrodes, and the broad current spread produced by monopolar stimulation. The following series of experiments investigate several methods to partially overcome these limitations. Experiment 1 compares two recently published techniques that aim to activate more apical fibers than produced by monopolar or bipolar stimulation of the most apical contacts. The first technique (phantom stimulation) manipulates the current spread by simultaneously stimulating two electrodes with opposite-polarity pulses of different amplitudes. The second technique manipulates the neural spread of excitation by using asymmetric pulses and exploiting the polarity-sensitive properties of auditory nerve fibers. The two techniques yielded similar results and were shown to produce lower place-pitch percepts than stimulation of monopolar and bipolar symmetric pulses. Furthermore, combining these two techniques may be advantageous in a clinical setting. Experiment 2 proposes a method to create place pitches intermediate to those produced by physical electrodes by using charge-balanced asymmetric pulses in bipolar mode with different degrees of asymmetry.
© 2012 Acoustical Society of America

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22423718      PMCID: PMC3383798          DOI: 10.1121/1.3677260

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


  40 in total

1.  The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  The lower limit of pitch as determined by rate discrimination.

Authors:  K Krumbholz; R D Patterson; D Pressnitzer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Speech perception, localization, and lateralization with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard J M van Hoesel; Richard S Tyler
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Mathieu Gani; Gregory Valentini; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Colette Boëx
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-11

7.  Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics.

Authors:  Ben H Bonham; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant.

Authors:  Y C Tong; P J Blamey; R C Dowell; G M Clark
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Arne H Voie; Barry Brunsden; J Gail Neely; Eugene A Saxon; Timothy E Hullar; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2007-04
View more
  13 in total

1.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

2.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

3.  Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.

Authors:  Silke Klawitter; David M Landsberger; Andreas Büchner; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Characterizing Polarity Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Demographic Effects and Potential Implications for Estimating Neural Health.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-06

6.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Physiological Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

7.  An Instrumented Cochlea Model for the Evaluation of Cochlear Implant Electrical Stimulus Spread.

Authors:  Chen Jiang; Shreya Singhal; Thomas Landry; Iwan Roberts; Simone de Rijk; Tim Brochier; Tobias Goehring; Yu Tam; Robert Carlyon; George Malliaras; Manohar Bance
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Kenneth K Jensen; Stefano Cosentino; Joshua G W Bernstein; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  Limitations on Monaural and Binaural Temporal Processing in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Robert P Carlyon; Alan Kan; Tyler H Churchill; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-06-24

10.  Evaluation of a cochlear-implant processing strategy incorporating phantom stimulation and asymmetric pulses.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Jolijn Monstrey; John M Deeks; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 2.117

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.