Literature DB >> 25840373

Frequency-place map for electrical stimulation in cochlear implants: Change over time.

Katrien Vermeire1, David M Landsberger2, Paul H Van de Heyning3, Maurits Voormolen4, Andrea Kleine Punte3, Reinhold Schatzer5, Clemens Zierhofer5.   

Abstract

The relationship between the place of electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant and the corresponding perceived pitch remains uncertain. Previous studies have estimated what the pitch corresponding to a particular location should be. However, perceptual verification is difficult because a subject needs both a cochlear implant and sufficient residual hearing to reliably compare electric and acoustic pitches. Additional complications can arise from the possibility that the pitch corresponding to an electrode may change as the auditory system adapts to a sound processor. In the following experiment, five subjects with normal or near-to-normal hearing in one ear and a cochlear implant with a long electrode array in the other ear were studied. Pitch matches were made between single electrode pulse trains and acoustic tones before activation of the speech processor to gain an estimate of the pitch provided by electrical stimulation at a given insertion angle without the influence of exposure to a sound processor. The pitch matches were repeated after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of experience with the sound processor to evaluate the effect of adaptation over time. Pre-activation pitch matches were lower than would be estimated by a spiral ganglion pitch map. Deviations were largest for stimulation below 240° degrees and smallest above 480°. With experience, pitch matches shifted towards the frequency-to-electrode allocation. However, no statistically significant pitch shifts were observed over time. The likely explanation for the lack of pitch change is that the frequency-to-electrode allocations for the long electrode arrays were already similar to the pre-activation pitch matches. Minimal place pitch shifts over time suggest a minimal amount of perceptual remapping needed for the integration of electric and acoustic stimuli, which may contribute to shorter times to asymptotic performance.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25840373      PMCID: PMC4524783          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.03.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  21 in total

1.  The cochlear implant electrode-pitch function.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  An electric frequency-to-place map for a cochlear implant patient with hearing in the nonimplanted ear.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Tony Spahr; Rene Gifford; Louise Loiselle; Sharon McKarns; Timothy Holden; Margaret Skinner; Charles Finley
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-03-10

3.  Cochlear implantation as a durable tinnitus treatment in single-sided deafness.

Authors:  Andrea Kleine Punte; Katrien Vermeire; Anouk Hofkens; Marc De Bodt; Dirk De Ridder; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2011-05

4.  Electric-acoustic pitch comparisons in single-sided-deaf cochlear implant users: frequency-place functions and rate pitch.

Authors:  Reinhold Schatzer; Katrien Vermeire; Daniel Visser; Andreas Krenmayr; Mathias Kals; Maurits Voormolen; Paul Van de Heyning; Clemens Zierhofer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-11-16       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Plasticity in human pitch perception induced by tonotopically mismatched electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  L A J Reiss; C W Turner; S A Karsten; B J Gantz
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 3.590

6.  Pitch matching psychometrics in electric acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Tobias Rader; Silke Helbig; Andreas Bahmer
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Influence of cochlear implant insertion depth on performance: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Craig A Buchman; Margaret T Dillon; English R King; Marcia C Adunka; Oliver F Adunka; Harold C Pillsbury
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Auditory training with spectrally shifted speech: implications for cochlear implant patient auditory rehabilitation.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; Geraldine Nogaki; John J Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-06-10

9.  Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing.

Authors:  Colette Boëx; Lionel Baud; Grégoire Cosendai; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Marco Pelizzone
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-02-01

10.  Abnormal pitch perception produced by cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Qing Tang; Thomas Lu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  23 in total

1.  Pitch Matching Adapts Even for Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users with Relatively Small Initial Pitch Differences Across the Ears.

Authors:  Justin M Aronoff; Hannah E Staisloff; Abbigail Kirchner; Daniel H Lee; Julia Stelmach
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-08-05

2.  Pitch Matching between Electrical Stimulation of a Cochlear Implant and Acoustic Stimuli Presented to a Contralateral Ear with Residual Hearing.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Perceptual changes with monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation.

Authors:  Silke Klawitter; David M Landsberger; Andreas Büchner; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  The Relationship Between Insertion Angles, Default Frequency Allocations, and Spiral Ganglion Place Pitch in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Maja Svrakic; J Thomas Roland; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  A potential neurophysiological correlate of electric-acoustic pitch matching in adult cochlear implant users: Pilot data.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett A Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2018-03-06

6.  Valid Acoustic Models of Cochlear Implants: One Size Does Not Fit All.

Authors:  Mario A Svirsky; Nicole Hope Capach; Jonathan D Neukam; Mahan Azadpour; Elad Sagi; Ariel Edward Hight; E Katelyn Glassman; Annette Lavender; Keena P Seward; Margaret K Miller; Nai Ding; Chin-Tuan Tan; Matthew B Fitzgerald
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Perceptually aligning apical frequency regions leads to more binaural fusion of speech in a cochlear implant simulation.

Authors:  Hannah E Staisloff; Daniel H Lee; Justin M Aronoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-05-18       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Cochlear Place of Stimulation Is One Determinant of Cochlear Implant Sound Quality.

Authors:  Michael F Dorman; Sarah Cook Natale; Leslie Baxter; Daniel M Zeitler; Mathew L Carlson; Jack H Noble
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2019-10-29       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Qualities of Single Electrode Stimulation as a Function of Rate and Place of Stimulation with a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Katrien Vermeire; Annes Claes; Vincent Van Rompaey; Paul Van de Heyning
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Place-Pitch Interval Perception With a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  Natalia Stupak; Ann E Todd; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.