Literature DB >> 24252455

Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.

Reinhold Schatzer1, Katrien Vermeire2, Daniel Visser2, Andreas Krenmayr2, Mathias Kals2, Maurits Voormolen3, Paul Van de Heyning4, Clemens Zierhofer5.   

Abstract

Eight cochlear implant users with near-normal hearing in their non-implanted ear compared pitch percepts for pulsatile electric and acoustic pure-tone stimuli presented to the two ears. Six subjects were implanted with a 31-mm MED-EL FLEX(SOFT) electrode, and two with a 24-mm medium (M) electrode, with insertion angles of the most apical contacts ranging from 565° to 758°. In the first experiment, frequency-place functions were derived from pure-tone matches to 1500-pps unmodulated pulse trains presented to individual electrodes and compared to Greenwood's frequency position map along the organ of Corti. While the overall median downward shift of the obtained frequency-place functions (-0.16 octaves re. Greenwood) and the mean shifts in the basal (<240°; -0.33 octaves) and middle (-0.35 octaves) regions were statistically significant, the shift in the apical region (>480°; 0.26 octaves) was not. Standard deviations of frequency-place functions were approximately half an octave at electrode insertion angles below 480°, increasing to an octave at higher angular locations while individual functions were gradually leveling off. In a second experiment, subjects matched the rates of unmodulated pulse trains presented to individual electrodes in the apical half of the array to low-frequency pure tones between 100 Hz and 450 Hz. The aim was to investigate the influence of electrode place on the salience of temporal pitch cues, for coding strategies that present temporal fine structure information via rate modulations on select apical channels. Most subjects achieved reliable matches to tone frequencies from 100 Hz to 300 Hz only on electrodes at angular insertion depths beyond 360°, while rate-matches to 450-Hz tones were primarily achieved on electrodes at shallower insertion angles. Only for electrodes in the second turn the average slopes of rate-pitch functions did not differ significantly from the pure-tone references, suggesting their use for the encoding of within-channel fine frequency information via rate modulations in temporal fine structure stimulation strategies.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24252455     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2013.11.003

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


  25 in total

1.  Interaural Pitch-Discrimination Range Effects for Bilateral and Single-Sided-Deafness Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Stefano Cosentino; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-08

2.  Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time.

Authors:  Katrien Vermeire; David M Landsberger; Paul H Van de Heyning; Maurits Voormolen; Andrea Kleine Punte; Reinhold Schatzer; Clemens Zierhofer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Neural Processing of Acoustic and Electric Interaural Time Differences in Normal-Hearing Gerbils.

Authors:  Maike Vollmer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  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

5.  Counting or discriminating the number of voices to assess binaural fusion with single-sided vocoders.

Authors:  Jessica M Wess; Nathaniel J Spencer; Joshua G W Bernstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  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

7.  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

8.  A Comparison of Place-Pitch-Based Interaural Electrode Matching Methods for Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Kenneth K Jensen; Stefano Cosentino; Joshua G W Bernstein; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  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

10.  Long-Term Influence of Electrode Array Length on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.