Literature DB >> 22583921

Spread of excitation varies for different electrical pulse shapes and stimulation modes in cochlear implants.

Jaime A Undurraga1, Robert P Carlyon, Olivier Macherey, Jan Wouters, Astrid van Wieringen.   

Abstract

In cochlear implants (CI) bipolar (BP) electrical stimulation has been suggested as a method to reduce the spread of current along the cochlea. However, behavioral measurements in BP mode have shown either similar or worse performance than in monopolar (MP) mode. This could be explained by a bimodal excitation pattern, with two main excitation peaks at the sites of the stimulating electrodes. We measured the spread of excitation (SOE) by means of the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), obtained using the forward-masked paradigm. The aim was to measure the bimodality of the excitation and to determine whether it could be reduced by using asymmetric pulses. Three types of maskers shapes were used: symmetric (SYM), pseudomonophasic (PS), and symmetric with a long inter-phase gap (SYM-IPG) pulses. Maskers were presented in BP + 9 (wide), BP + 3 (narrow) and MP (only SYM) mode on fixed electrodes. The SOE obtained with the MP masker showed a main excitation peak close to the masker electrode. Wide SYM maskers produced bimodal excitation patterns showing two peaks close to the electrodes of the masker channel, whereas SYM-IPG maskers showed a single main peak near the electrode for which the masker's second phase (responsible for most of the masking) was anodic. Narrow SYM maskers showed complex and wider excitation patterns than asymmetric stimuli consistent with the overlap of the patterns produced by each channel's electrodes. The masking produced by narrow SYM-IPG and PS stimuli was more pronounced close to the masker electrode for which the effective phase was anodic. These results showed that the anodic polarity is the most effective one in BP mode and that the bimodal patterns produced by SYM maskers could be partially reduced by using asymmetric pulses.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22583921     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.05.003

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


  17 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.  The polarity sensitivity of the electrically stimulated human auditory nerve measured at the level of the brainstem.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Robert P Carlyon; Jan Wouters; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-03-12

3.  A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.

Authors:  Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Recommendations for Measuring the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Lei Xu; Holly F B Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin D Brown; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner; Angela Pellittieri; William J Riggs
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

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.  Effect of Increasing Pulse Phase Duration on Neural Responsiveness of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve.

Authors:  Shuman He; Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Xiuhua Chao; William J Riggs; Ruijie Wang; Chloe Vaughan; Jianfen Luo; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

8.  Input-Output Functions in Human Heads Obtained With Cochlear Implant and Transcranial Electric Stimulation.

Authors:  Phillip Tran; Matthew L Richardson; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-11-11

9.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).

Authors:  Nicolas Guevara; Michel Hoen; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Investigating the use of a Gammatone filterbank for a cochlear implant coding strategy.

Authors:  Sonia Tabibi; Andrea Kegel; Wai Kong Lai; Norbert Dillier
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.