Literature DB >> 23742363

Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.

Claire A Fielden1, Karolina Kluk, Colette M McKay.   

Abstract

This experiment investigated whether place specificity of neural activity evoked by cochlear implant stimulation is improved in tripolar compared to monopolar mode using a forward masking protocol addressing some limitations of previous methods of measurement and analysis. The amount of residual masking (masking remaining at long masker-probe delays) was also measured, and its potential influence on the specificity measures was evaluated. The masker stimulus comprised equally loud interleaved mono- or tripolar stimulation on two electrodes equidistant from a central probe electrode in an apical and basal direction, reducing the influence of off-site listening. The effect of masker-probe distance on the threshold shift of the tripolar probe was analyzed to derive a measure of place specificity. On average, tripolar maskers were more place specific than monopolar maskers, although the mean effect was small. There was no significant effect of masker level on specificity or on the differences observed between modes. The mean influence of residual masking on normalized masking functions was similar for the two modes and, therefore, did not influence the comparison of specificity between the modes. However, variability in amount of residual masking was observed between subjects, and therefore should be considered in forward masking studies that compare place specificity across subjects.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23742363     DOI: 10.1121/1.4803909

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


  16 in total

1.  Perceptual interactions between electrodes using focused and monopolar cochlear stimulation.

Authors:  Jeremy Marozeau; Hugh J McDermott; Brett A Swanson; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-06

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Loudness and pitch perception using Dynamically Compensated Virtual Channels.

Authors:  Waldo Nogueira; Leonid M Litvak; David M Landsberger; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  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

6.  Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Amberly D Nye
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  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

Review 8.  Procedural Factors That Affect Psychophysical Measures of Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Stefano Cosentino; John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 3.293

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.  Perceptual Spaces Induced by Cochlear Implant All-Polar Stimulation Mode.

Authors:  Jeremy Marozeau; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.