Literature DB >> 25742726

Perceptual interactions between electrodes using focused and monopolar cochlear stimulation.

Jeremy Marozeau1, Hugh J McDermott, Brett A Swanson, Colette M McKay.   

Abstract

In today's cochlear implant (CI) systems, the monopolar (MP) electrode configuration is the most commonly used stimulation mode, requiring only a single current source. However, with an implant that will allow simultaneous activation of multiple independent current sources, it is possible to implement an all-polar (AP) stimulation mode designed to create a focused electrical field. The goal of this experiment was to study the potential benefits of this all-polar mode for reducing uncontrolled electrode interactions compared with the monopolar mode. The five participants who took part in the study were implanted with a research device that was connected via a percutaneous connector to a benchtop stimulator providing 22 independent current sources. The perceptual effects of the AP mode were tested in three experiments. In Experiment 1, the current level difference between loudness-matched sequential and simultaneous stimuli composed of 2 spatially separated pulse trains was measured as function of the electrode separation. Results indicated a strong current-summation interaction for simultaneous stimuli in the MP mode for separations up to at least 4.8 mm. No significant interaction was found in the AP mode beyond a separation of 2.4 mm. In Experiment 2, a forward-masking paradigm was used with fixed equally loud probes in AP and MP modes, and AP maskers presented on different electrode positions. Results indicated a similar spatial masking pattern between modes. In Experiment 3, subjects were asked to discriminate between across-electrode temporal delays. It was hypothesized that discrimination would decrease with electrode separation faster in AP compared to MP modes. However, results showed no difference between the two modes. Overall, the results indicated that the AP mode produced less current spread than MP mode but did not lead to a significant advantage in terms of spread of neuronal excitation at equally loud levels.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25742726      PMCID: PMC4417090          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-015-0511-2

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


  25 in total

1.  Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: the influence of residual masking.

Authors:  Claire A Fielden; Karolina Kluk; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  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

3.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Monica Padilla; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.208

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

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Timothy A Holden; Gary H McClelland; Wendy S Parkinson; Clough Shelton; David C Kelsall; Zachary M Smith
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-30

5.  Interpulse interval discrimination within and across channels: comparison of monopolar and tripolar mode of stimulation.

Authors:  Claire A Fielden; Karolina Kluk; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Neural excitation patterns induced by phased-array stimulation in the implanted human cochlea.

Authors:  Johan H M Frijns; David M T Dekker; Jeroen J Briaire
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  Reducing current spread using current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients.

Authors:  Peter Blamey; Françoise Artieres; Deniz Başkent; François Bergeron; Andy Beynon; Elaine Burke; Norbert Dillier; Richard Dowell; Bernard Fraysse; Stéphane Gallégo; Paul J Govaerts; Kevin Green; Alexander M Huber; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Bert Maat; Mathieu Marx; Deborah Mawman; Isabelle Mosnier; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Stephen O'Leary; Alexandra Rousset; Karen Schauwers; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Olivier Sterkers; Assia Terranti; Eric Truy; Paul Van de Heyning; Fréderic Venail; Christophe Vincent; Diane S Lazard
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  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

10.  Temporal modulation transfer functions in cochlear implantees using a method that limits overall loudness cues.

Authors:  Matthew Fraser; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  14 in total

1.  Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.

Authors:  Shefin S George; Mohit N Shivdasani; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Evaluation of focused multipolar stimulation for cochlear implants: a preclinical safety study.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Andrew K Wise; Ya Lang Enke; Paul M Carter; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  The effect of a coding strategy that removes temporally masked pulses on speech perception by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Wiebke Lamping; Tobias Goehring; Jeremy Marozeau; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  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

5.  Reducing Current Spread by Use of a Novel Pulse Shape for Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve.

Authors:  Jimena Ballestero; Matthieu Recugnat; Jonathan Laudanski; Katie E Smith; Daniel J Jagger; Daniel Gnansia; David McAlpine
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 3.293

6.  Spatial Selectivity in Cochlear Implants: Effects of Asymmetric Waveforms and Development of a Single-Point Measure.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Jaime Undurraga; Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-28

7.  Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; François Guérit; John M Deeks; Andrew Harland; Robin Gransier; Jan Wouters; Simone R de Rijk; Manohar Bance
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-01-25

8.  The Perception of Ramped Pulse Shapes in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Charlotte Amalie Navntoft; David M Landsberger; Tania Rinaldi Barkat; Jeremy Marozeau
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

9.  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

10.  Perceptual Spaces Induced by Cochlear Implant All-Polar Stimulation Mode.

Authors:  Jeremy Marozeau; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.