Literature DB >> 25036146

Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.

Julie Arenberg Bierer1, Amberly D Nye.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine how the level of current required for cochlear implant listeners to detect single-channel electrical pulse trains relates to loudness perception on the same channel. The working hypothesis was that channels with relatively high thresholds, when measured with a focused current pattern, interface poorly to the auditory nerve. For such channels, a smaller dynamic range between perceptual threshold and the most comfortable loudness would result, in part, from a greater sensitivity to changes in electrical field spread compared to low-threshold channels. The narrower range of comfortable listening levels may have important implications for speech perception.
DESIGN: Data were collected from eight, adult cochlear implant listeners implanted with the HiRes90k cochlear implant (Advanced Bionics Corp.). The partial tripolar (pTP) electrode configuration, consisting of one intracochlear active electrode, two flanking electrodes carrying a fraction (σ) of the return current, and an extracochlear ground, was used for stimulation. Single-channel detection thresholds and most comfortable listening levels were acquired using the most focused pTP configuration possible (σ ≥ 0.8) to identify three channels for further testing-those with the highest, median, and lowest thresholds-for each subject. Threshold, equal-loudness contours (at 50% of the monopolar dynamic range), and loudness growth functions were measured for each of these three test channels using various pTP fractions.
RESULTS: For all test channels, thresholds increased as the electrode configuration became more focused. The rate of increase with the focusing parameter σ was greatest for the high-threshold channel compared to the median- and low-threshold channels. The 50% equal-loudness contours exhibited similar rates of increase in level across test channels and subjects. Additionally, test channels with the highest thresholds had the narrowest dynamic ranges (for σ ≥ 0.5) and steepest growth of loudness functions for all electrode configurations.
CONCLUSIONS: Together with previous studies using focused stimulation, the results suggest that auditory responses to electrical stimuli at both threshold and suprathreshold current levels are not uniform across the electrode array of individual cochlear implant listeners. Specifically, the steeper growth of loudness and thus smaller dynamic ranges observed for high-threshold channels are consistent with a degraded electrode-neuron interface, which could stem from lower numbers of functioning auditory neurons or a relatively large distance between the neurons and electrodes. These findings may have potential implications for how stimulation levels are set during the clinical mapping procedure, particularly for speech-processing strategies that use focused electrical fields.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25036146      PMCID: PMC4208951          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  38 in total

1.  Effects of dynamic range and amplitude mapping on phoneme recognition in Nucleus-22 cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  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

3.  Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  F G Zeng; J J Galvin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 4.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

5.  Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 4. model development at low pulse rates: general model and application to individuals.

Authors:  Lawrence T Cohen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-12-07       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Across-site patterns of modulation detection: relation to speech recognition.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Teresa A Zwolan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Quadrupolar stimulation for Cochlear prostheses: modeling and experimental data.

Authors:  C N Jolly; F A Spelman; B M Clopton
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.538

Review 8.  Forward masking as a method of measuring place specificity of neural excitation in cochlear implants: a review of methods and interpretation.

Authors:  Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Intensity coding in electric hearing: effects of electrode configurations and stimulation waveforms.

Authors:  Tiffany Elise H Chua; Mark Bachman; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  21 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.  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

3.  Band importance functions of listeners with cochlear implants using clinical maps.

Authors:  Adam K Bosen; Monita Chatterjee
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The effect of envelope modulations on binaural processing.

Authors:  Matthew J Goupell; Stephen Fong; Olga Stakhovskaya
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

6.  Asymmetric temporal envelope encoding: Implications for within- and across-ear envelope comparison.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Alan Kan; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Mingqi Hang
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-30

8.  Effects of rate and age in processing interaural time and level differences in normal-hearing and bilateral cochlear-implant listeners.

Authors:  Sean R Anderson; Kyle Easter; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  The Relationship Between Intensity Coding and Binaural Sensitivity in Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; Matthew J Goupell; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.