Literature DB >> 23299125

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

Aniket A Saoji1, David M Landsberger, Monica Padilla, Leonid M Litvak.   

Abstract

Phantom electrode (PE) stimulation consists of out-of-phase stimulation of two electrodes. When presented at the apex of the electrode array, phantom stimulation is known to produce a lower pitch sensation than monopolar (MP) stimulation on the most apical electrode. The ratio of the current between the primary electrode (PEL) and the compensating electrode (CEL) is represented by the coefficient σ, which ranges from 0 (monopolar) to 1 (full bipolar). The exact mechanism by which PE stimulation produces a lower pitch sensation is unclear. In the present study, unmasked and masked thresholds were obtained using a forward masking paradigm to estimate the spread of current for MP and PE stimulation. Masked thresholds were measured for two phantom electrode configurations (1) PEL = 4, CEL = 5 (lower pitch phantom) and (2) PEL = 4, CEL = 3 (higher pitch phantom). The unmasked thresholds were subtracted from the masked thresholds to obtain masking patterns which were normalized to their peak. The masking patterns reveal (1) differences in the spread of excitation that are consistent with the direction of pitch shift produced by PE stimulation, and (2) narrower spread of electrical excitation for PE stimulation relative to MP stimulation.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23299125      PMCID: PMC3755121          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.12.006

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


  34 in total

1.  Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-11-04

2.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Heather A Kreft; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Michael Tykocinski; Lawrence T Cohen; Robert S Cowan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Dual-electrode pitch discrimination with sequential interleaved stimulation by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1997-11

7.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation.

Authors:  M Chatterjee; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  The identification of consonants and vowels by cochlear implant patients using a 6-channel continuous interleaved sampling processor and by normal-hearing subjects using simulations of processors with two to nine channels.

Authors:  M F Dorman; P C Loizou
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Pitch ranking with nonsimultaneous dual-electrode electrical stimulation of the cochlea.

Authors:  H J McDermott; C M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B E Pfingst; T A Zwolan; L A Holloway
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  15 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

2.  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

3.  Loudness summation using focused and unfocused electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Electrode spanning with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ching-Chih Wu; Xin Luo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-05-28

5.  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

6.  The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 7.  Auditory implant research at the House Ear Institute 1989-2013.

Authors:  Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Monica Padilla; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  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

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.