Literature DB >> 24477546

Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding.

Christopher J Long1, Timothy A Holden, Gary H McClelland, Wendy S Parkinson, Clough Shelton, David C Kelsall, Zachary M Smith.   

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between focused-stimulation thresholds, electrode positions, and speech understanding in deaf subjects treated with a cochlear implant (CI). Focused stimulation is more selective than monopolar stimulation, which excites broad regions of the cochlea, so may be more sensitive as a probe of neural survival patterns. Focused thresholds are on average higher and more variable across electrodes than monopolar thresholds. We presume that relatively high focused thresholds are the result of larger distances between the electrodes and the neurons. Two factors are likely to contribute to this distance: (1) the physical position of electrodes relative to the modiolus, where the excitable auditory neurons are normally located, and (2) the pattern of neural survival along the length of the cochlea, since local holes in the neural population will increase the distance between an electrode and the nearest neurons. Electrode-to-modiolus distance was measured from high-resolution CT scans of the cochleae of CI users whose focused-stimulation thresholds were also measured. A hierarchical set of linear models of electrode-to-modiolus distance versus threshold showed a significant increase in threshold with electrode-to-modiolus distance (average slope = 11 dB/mm). The residual of these models was hypothesized to reflect neural survival in each subject. Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word scores were significantly correlated with the within-subject variance of threshold (r(2) = 0.82), but not with within-subject variance of electrode distance (r(2) = 0.03). Speech understanding also significantly correlated with how well distance explained each subject's threshold data (r(2) = 0.63). That is, subjects with focused thresholds that were well described by electrode position had better speech scores. Our results suggest that speech understanding is highly impacted by individual patterns of neural survival and that these patterns manifest themselves in how well (or poorly) electrode position predicts focused thresholds.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24477546      PMCID: PMC3946134          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0437-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  34 in total

1.  The biomedical imaging resource at Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  R A Robb
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 10.048

2.  Psychophysics of a prototype peri-modiolar cochlear implant electrode array.

Authors:  L T Cohen; E Saunders; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

4.  Imaging the intact guinea pig tympanic bulla by orthogonal-plane fluorescence optical sectioning microscopy.

Authors:  Arne H Voie
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  P J Blamey; B C Pyman; M Gordon; G M Clark; A M Brown; R C Dowell; R D Hollow
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 1.547

6.  Multipolar current focusing increases spectral resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Zachary M Smith; Wendy S Parkinson; Christopher J Long
Journal:  Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc       Date:  2013

7.  Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  T A Zwolan; L M Collins; G H Wakefield
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 8.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants.

Authors:  P Blamey; P Arndt; F Bergeron; G Bredberg; J Brimacombe; G Facer; J Larky; B Lindström; J Nedzelski; A Peterson; D Shipp; S Staller; L Whitford
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

Authors:  H Levitt
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1971-02       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation.

Authors:  J B Nadol; Y S Young; R J Glynn
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 1.547

View more
  81 in total

1.  Structural and Ultrastructural Changes to Type I Spiral Ganglion Neurons and Schwann Cells in the Deafened Guinea Pig Cochlea.

Authors:  Andrew K Wise; Remy Pujol; Thomas G Landry; James B Fallon; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-17

2.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 3.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  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

5.  Spectral and temporal analysis of simulated dead regions in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Gary L Jones; Il Joon Moon; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-03-05

6.  Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images.

Authors:  Fabiana Danieli; Thomas Dermacy; Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral; Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis; Dan Gnansia; Miguel Angelo Hyppolito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Contribution of formant frequency information to vowel perception in steady-state noise by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Elad Sagi; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Factors Affecting Outcomes in Cochlear Implant Recipients Implanted With a Perimodiolar Electrode Array Located in Scala Tympani.

Authors:  Laura K Holden; Jill B Firszt; Ruth M Reeder; Rosalie M Uchanski; Noël Y Dwyer; Timothy A Holden
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Lateralization of Interaural Level Differences with Multiple Electrode Stimulation in Bilateral Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Olga A Stakhovskaya; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.