Literature DB >> 24942704

Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Pieter J Venter1, Johan J Hanekom.   

Abstract

Literature often refers to a 300 pps limit for cochlear implant (CI) electrical stimulation, above which pulse rate discrimination deteriorates or above which rate pitch is not perceived to increase. The present study investigated the effect on pulse rate difference limens (PRDLs) when using compound stimuli in which identical pulse trains were applied to multiple electrodes across the length of the electrode array and compared the results to those of single-electrode stimuli. PRDLs of seven CI users were determined in two stimulus pulse phase conditions, one in which the phase delays between pulses on different electrodes were minimised (burst mode) and a second in which they were maximised (spread mode). PRDLs were measured at base rates of 100 to 600 pps in 100 pps intervals, using compound stimuli on one, two, five, nine and 18 electrodes. As smaller PRDLs were expected to reflect improved rate pitch perception, 18-electrode spread mode stimuli were also included in a pitch ranking task. PRDLs improved markedly when multi-electrode compound stimuli were used, with average spread mode PRDLs across listeners between 6 and 8 % of the base rate in the whole range tested (i.e. up to 600 pps). PRDLs continued to improve as more electrodes were included, up to at least nine electrodes in the compound stimulus. Stimulus pulse phase had a significant influence on the results, with PRDLs being smaller in spread mode. Results indicate that pulse rate discrimination may be manipulated with stimulus parameter choice so that previously observed deterioration of PRDLs at 300 pps probably does not reflect a fundamental limitation to rate discrimination. However, rate pitch perception did not improve in the conditions that resulted in smaller PRDLs. This may indicate that listeners used cues other than pitch to perform the rate discrimination task or may reflect limitations in the electrically evoked neural excitation patterns presented to a rate pitch extraction mechanism.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24942704      PMCID: PMC4164693          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-014-0468-6

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


  47 in total

1.  Pitch discrimination of patterned electric stimulation.

Authors:  Hongbin Chen; Yumi Christine Ishihara; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Optimizing the clinical fit of auditory brain stem implants.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Ian Nimmo-Smith; David M Baguley; Martin O'Driscoll; Richard Ramsden; Steven R Otto; Patrick R Axon; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Limits of temporal pitch in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; John M Deeks; Patrick R Axon; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  What makes a melody: The perceptual singularity of pitch sequences.

Authors:  Marion Cousineau; Laurent Demany; Daniel Pressnitzer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Electrode interaction in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of straight and contour electrode arrays.

Authors:  Xin Xi; Fei Ji; Dongyi Han; Mengdi Hong; Aiting Chen
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 1.538

6.  Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The role of excitation-pattern cues and temporal cues in the frequency and modulation-rate discrimination of amplitude-modulated tones.

Authors:  C Micheyl; B C Moore; R P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Electrode interaction in pediatric cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  Marc D Eisen; Kevin H Franck
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

9.  Electric to acoustic pitch matching: a possible way to improve individual cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Walter Di Nardo; Italo Cantore; Maria Raffaella Marchese; Francesca Cianfrone; Alessandro Scorpecci; Sara Giannantonio; Gaetano Paludetti
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 2.503

10.  Pulse-rate discrimination by cochlear-implant and normal-hearing listeners with and without binaural cues.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Christopher J Long; John M Deeks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  8 in total

1.  Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Juliana Mathews; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Superior temporal resolution of Chronos versus channelrhodopsin-2 in an optogenetic model of the auditory brainstem implant.

Authors:  Ariel Edward Hight; Elliott D Kozin; Keith Darrow; Ashton Lehmann; Edward Boyden; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2015-01-15       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The burst gap is a peripheral temporal code for pitch perception that is shared across audition and touch.

Authors:  Deepak Sharma; Kevin K W Ng; Ingvars Birznieks; Richard M Vickery
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.996

4.  Judgment of musical emotions after cochlear implantation in adults with progressive deafness.

Authors:  Emmanuèle Ambert-Dahan; Anne-Lise Giraud; Olivier Sterkers; Séverine Samson
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-03-12

5.  Limitations on Monaural and Binaural Temporal Processing in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Antje Ihlefeld; Robert P Carlyon; Alan Kan; Tyler H Churchill; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-06-24

6.  Cochlear Implant Rate Pitch and Melody Perception as a Function of Place and Number of Electrodes.

Authors:  Vijay Marimuthu; Brett A Swanson; Robert Mannell
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 3.293

7.  Perceptual learning of pitch provided by cochlear implant stimulation rate.

Authors:  Susan R S Bissmeyer; Shaikat Hossain; Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Pleasantness Ratings of Musical Dyads in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Andres Camarena; Grace Manchala; Julianne Papadopoulos; Samantha R O'Connell; Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-12-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.