Literature DB >> 24095669

ECAP spread of excitation with virtual channels and physical electrodes.

Michelle L Hughes1, Lisa J Stille, Jacquelyn L Baudhuin, Jenny L Goehring.   

Abstract

The primary goal of this study was to evaluate physiological spatial excitation patterns for stimulation of adjacent physical electrodes and intermediate virtual channels. Two experiments were conducted that utilized electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) spread-of-excitation (SOE) functions obtained with the traditional forward-masking subtraction method. These two experiments examined spatial excitation patterns for virtual-channel maskers and probes, respectively. In Experiment 1, ECAP SOE patterns were obtained for maskers applied to physical electrodes and virtual channels to determine whether virtual-channel maskers yield SOE patterns similar to those predicted from physical electrodes. In Experiment 2, spatial separation of SOE functions was compared for two adjacent physical probe electrodes and the intermediate virtual channel to determine the extent to which ECAP SOE patterns for virtual-channel probes are spatially separate from those obtained with physical electrodes. Data were obtained for three electrode regions (basal, middle, apical) for 35 ears implanted with Cochlear (N = 16) or Advanced Bionics (N = 19) devices. Results from Experiment 1 showed no significant difference between predicted and measured ECAP amplitudes for Advanced Bionics subjects. Measured ECAP amplitudes for virtual-channel maskers were significantly larger than the predicted amplitudes for Cochlear subjects; however, the difference was <2 μV and thus is likely not clinically significant. Results from Experiment 2 showed that the probe set in the apical region demonstrated the least amount of spatial separation amongst SOE functions, which may be attributed to more uniform nerve survival patterns, closer electrode spacing, and/or the tapered geometry of the cochlea. As expected, adjacent physical probes demonstrated greater spatial separation than for comparisons between each physical probe and the intermediate virtual channel. Finally, the virtual-channel SOE functions were generally weighted toward the basal electrode in the pair.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AB; Advanced Bionics; BEDCS; Bionic Ear Data Collection System; CI; CL; CPI II; Clinical Programming Interface; ECAP; MPI; NRT; Neural Response Telemetry; PM; PSP; Platinum Series Processor; RM ANOVA; SD; SOE; VM; cochlear implant; current level units; electrically evoked compound action potential; masker-probe interval; physical-electrode maskers; pps; pulses per second; repeated-measures analysis of variance; spread of excitation; standard deviation; virtual-channel maskers

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24095669      PMCID: PMC3951167          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.09.014

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


  22 in total

1.  The resolution of complex spectral patterns by cochlear implant and normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Belinda A Henry; Christopher W Turner
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Michelle L Hughes; Carolyn J Brown; Charles A Miller; Heather South
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

3.  Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Adam M Goulson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Conditions for generating virtual channels in cochlear prosthesis systems.

Authors:  Charles T M Choi; Chien-Hua Hsu
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 3.934

5.  Electrophysiological spread of excitation and pitch perception for dual and single electrodes using the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant.

Authors:  Peter A Busby; Rolf D Battmer; Joerg Pesch
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  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

7.  Excitation patterns of simultaneous and sequential dual-electrode stimulation in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; Leonid M Litvak; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  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

9.  Spread of excitation and channel interaction in single- and dual-electrode cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Jorien Snel-Bongers; Jeroen J Briaire; Filiep J Vanpoucke; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Simultaneous and non-simultaneous dual electrode stimulation in cochlear implants: evidence for two neural response modalities.

Authors:  Johan H M Frijns; Randy K Kalkman; Filiep J Vanpoucke; Jorien Snel Bongers; Jeroen J Briaire
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.494

View more
  12 in total

1.  Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread of excitation using current steering in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jenny L Goehring; Donna L Neff; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels in perimodiolar electrode recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Effect of electrode impedance on spread of excitation and pitch perception using electrically coupled "dual-electrode" stimulation.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       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.  Relationships Among Peripheral and Central Electrophysiological Measures of Spatial and Spectral Selectivity and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Peripheral and Central Contributions to Cortical Responses in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread-of-excitation using Cochlear's dual-electrode mode.

Authors:  Jenny L Goehring; Donna L Neff; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  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

9.  Musical Sound Quality as a Function of the Number of Channels in Modern Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn Berg; Jack Noble; Benoit Dawant; Robert Dwyer; Robert Labadie; Virginia Richards; René Gifford
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.