Literature DB >> 25480063

Pitch ranking, electrode discrimination, and physiological spread of excitation using current steering in cochlear implants.

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

Abstract

The first objective of this study was to determine whether adaptive pitch-ranking and electrode-discrimination tasks with cochlear-implant (CI) recipients produce similar results for perceiving intermediate "virtual-channel" pitch percepts using current steering. Previous studies have not examined both behavioral tasks in the same subjects with current steering. A second objective was to determine whether a physiological metric of spatial separation using the electrically evoked compound action potential spread-of-excitation (ECAP SOE) function could predict performance in the behavioral tasks. The metric was the separation index (Σ), defined as the difference in normalized amplitudes between two adjacent ECAP SOE functions, summed across all masker electrodes. Eleven CII or 90 K Advanced Bionics (Valencia, CA) recipients were tested using pairs of electrodes from the basal, middle, and apical portions of the electrode array. The behavioral results, expressed as d', showed no significant differences across tasks. There was also no significant effect of electrode region for either task. ECAP Σ was not significantly correlated with pitch ranking or electrode discrimination for any of the electrode regions. Therefore, the ECAP separation index is not sensitive enough to predict perceptual resolution of virtual channels.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25480063      PMCID: PMC4257956          DOI: 10.1121/1.4900634

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


  26 in total

1.  Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Michelle L Hughes; Carolyn J Brown; Charles A Miller; Heather South
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

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.  The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients.

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

5.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

6.  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

7.  Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects.

Authors:  L M Collins; T A Zwolan; G H Wakefield
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.

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

9.  An adaptive procedure for subjective judgments.

Authors:  W Jesteadt
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1980-07

10.  Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of standard HiRes and HiRes 120 sound processing.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Laura K Holden; Ruth M Reeder; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).

Authors:  Nicolas Guevara; Michel Hoen; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.