Literature DB >> 25096106

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

Jenny L Goehring1, Donna L Neff1, Jacquelyn L Baudhuin1, Michelle L Hughes1.   

Abstract

This study compared pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) spatial excitation patterns for adjacent physical electrodes (PEs) and the corresponding dual electrodes (DEs) for newer-generation Cochlear devices (Cochlear Ltd., Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia). The first goal was to determine whether pitch ranking and electrode discrimination yield similar outcomes for PEs and DEs. The second goal was to determine if the amount of spatial separation among ECAP excitation patterns (separation index, Σ) between adjacent PEs and the PE-DE pairs can predict performance on the psychophysical tasks. Using non-adaptive procedures, 13 subjects completed pitch ranking and electrode discrimination for adjacent PEs and the corresponding PE-DE pairs (DE versus each flanking PE) from the basal, middle, and apical electrode regions. Analysis of d' scores indicated that pitch-ranking and electrode-discrimination scores were not significantly different, but rather produced similar levels of performance. As expected, accuracy was significantly better for the PE-PE comparison than either PE-DE comparison. Correlations of the psychophysical versus ECAP Σ measures were positive; however, not all test/region correlations were significant across the array. Thus, the ECAP separation index is not sensitive enough to predict performance on behavioral tasks of pitch ranking or electrode discrimination for adjacent PEs or corresponding DEs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25096106      PMCID: PMC4144258          DOI: 10.1121/1.4884881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  32 in total

1.  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

2.  Place-pitch discrimination of single- versus dual-electrode stimuli by cochlear implant users (L).

Authors:  Gail S Donaldson; Heather A Kreft; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Dual electrode stimulation using the nucleus CI24RE cochlear implant: electrode impedance and pitch ranking studies.

Authors:  Peter A Busby; Kerrie L Plant
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Current steering creates additional pitch percepts in adult cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Dawn Burton Koch; Mark Downing; Leonid Litvak
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Effects of stimulation configurations on place pitch discrimination in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bomjun J Kwon; Trevor T Perry; Vauna L Olmstead
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  A re-evaluation of the relation between physiological channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  5 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.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

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.  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

5.  Using Spectral Blurring to Assess Effects of Channel Interaction on Speech-in-Noise Perception with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Tobias Goehring; Julie G Arenberg; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-09
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.