Literature DB >> 24055624

Multidimensional scaling between acoustic and electric stimuli in cochlear implant users with contralateral hearing.

Katrien Vermeire1, David M Landsberger, Peter Schleich, Paul H Van de Heyning.   

Abstract

This study investigated the perceptual relationship between acoustic and electric stimuli presented to CI users with functional contralateral hearing. Fourteen subjects with unilateral profound deafness implanted with a MED-EL CI scaled the perceptual differences between pure tones presented to the acoustic hearing ear and electric biphasic pulse trains presented to the implanted ear. The differences were analyzed with a multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis. Additionally, speech performance in noise was tested using sentence material presented in different spatial configurations while patients listened with both their acoustic hearing and implanted ears. Results of alternating least squares scaling (ALSCAL) analysis consistently demonstrate that a change in place of stimulation is in the same perceptual dimension as a change in acoustic frequency. However, the relative perceptual differences between the acoustic and the electric stimuli varied greatly across subjects. A degree of perceptual separation between acoustic and electric stimulation (quantified by relative dimensional weightings from an INDSCAL analysis) was hypothesized that would indicate a change in perceptual quality, but also be predictive of performance with combined acoustic and electric hearing. Perceptual separation between acoustic and electric stimuli was observed for some subjects. However, no relationship between the degree of perceptual separation and performance was found.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24055624      PMCID: PMC3976044          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.09.004

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


  29 in total

1.  Investigating perceptual features of electrode stimulation via a multidimensional scaling paradigm.

Authors:  L M Collins; C S Throckmorton
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Optimizing electrode and filter selection in cochlear implant speech processor maps.

Authors:  K R Henshall; C M McKay
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Cochlear implantation in unilateral deaf subjects associated with ipsilateral tinnitus.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Martina Brendel; Anke Lesinski-Schiedat; Gentiana Wenzel; Carolin Frohne-Buechner; Burkard Jaeger; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Perceptual dissimilarities among acoustic stimuli and ipsilateral electric stimuli.

Authors:  Hugh J McDermott; Catherine M Sucher
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-06-14       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Two-component hearing sensations produced by two-electrode stimulation in the cochlea of a deaf patient.

Authors:  Y C Tong; R C Dowell; P J Blamey; G M Clark
Journal:  Science       Date:  1983-02-25       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  The relationship between binaural benefit and difference in unilateral speech recognition performance for bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Yang-Soo Yoon; Yongxin Li; Hou-Yong Kang; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Cochlear implantation for unilateral deafness with and without tinnitus: a case series.

Authors:  Dayse Távora-Vieira; Roberta Marino; Jay Krishnaswamy; Jafri Kuthbutheen; Gunesh P Rajan
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2013-04-02       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Extending the limits of place and temporal pitch perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-11-30
View more
  10 in total

1.  Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Katrien Vermeire; Annes Claes; Vincent Van Rompaey; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Place-Pitch Interval Perception With a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Ann E Todd; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness.

Authors:  Coral E Dirks; Peggy B Nelson; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

5.  Music Is More Enjoyable With Two Ears, Even If One of Them Receives a Degraded Signal Provided By a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Katrien Vermeire; Natalia Stupak; Annette Lavender; Jonathan Neukam; Paul Van de Heyning; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Contralateral masking in bilateral cochlear implant patients: a model of medial olivocochlear function loss.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Monica Padilla; Qian-Jie Fu; David M Landsberger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Pleasantness Ratings for Harmonic Intervals With Acoustic and Electric Hearing in Unilaterally Deaf Cochlear Implant Patients.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; David M Landsberger; David R Friedmann; John J Galvin
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type.

Authors:  Youssef Adel; Sharon Nagel; Tobias Weissgerber; Uwe Baumann; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Abnormal pitch perception produced by cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Qing Tang; Thomas Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Monica Padilla; Robert P Morse; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.