Literature DB >> 26778546

Reduction in spread of excitation from current focusing at multiple cochlear locations in cochlear implant users.

Monica Padilla1, David M Landsberger2.   

Abstract

Channel interaction from a broad spread of excitation is likely to be a limiting factor in performance by cochlear implant users. Although partial tripolar stimulation has been shown to reduce spread of excitation, the magnitude of the reduction is highly variable across subjects. Because the reduction in spread of excitation is typically only measured at one electrode for a given subject, the degree of variability across cochlear locations is unknown. The first goal of the present study was to determine if the reduction in spread of excitation observed from partial tripolar current focusing systematically varies across the cochlea. The second goal was to measure the variability in reduction of spread of excitation relative to monopolar stimulation across the cochlea. The third goal was to expand upon previous results that suggest that scaling of verbal descriptors can be used to predict the reduction in spread of excitation, by increasing the limited number of sites previously evaluated and verify the relationships remain with the larger dataset. The spread of excitation for monopolar and partial tripolar stimulation was measured at 5 cochlear locations using a psychophysical forward masking task. Results of the present study suggest that although partial tripolar stimulation typically reduces spread of excitation, the degree of reduction in spread of excitation was found to be highly variable and no effect of cochlear location was found. Additionally, subjective scaling of certain verbal descriptors (Clean/Dirty, Pure/Noisy) correlated with the reduction in spread of excitation suggesting sound quality scaling might be used as a quick clinical estimate of channels providing a reduction in spread of excitation. This quick scaling technique might help clinicians determine which patients would be most likely to benefit from a focused strategy.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear; Implants; Scaling; Spread; Tripolar

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26778546      PMCID: PMC4907334          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.01.002

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


  18 in total

1.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Focused intracochlear electric stimulation with phased array channels.

Authors:  Chris van den Honert; David C Kelsall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation.

Authors:  M Chatterjee; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Electrode spanning with partial tripolar stimulation mode in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ching-Chih Wu; Xin Luo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-05-28

8.  Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Aniket A Saoji; David M Landsberger; Monica Padilla; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; David M Landsberger; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 3.208

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.  Model-based Vestibular Afferent Stimulation: Modular Workflow for Analyzing Stimulation Scenarios in Patient Specific and Statistical Vestibular Anatomy.

Authors:  Michael Handler; Peter P Schier; Karl D Fritscher; Patrik Raudaschl; Lejo Johnson Chacko; Rudolf Glueckert; Rami Saba; Rainer Schubert; Daniel Baumgarten; Christian Baumgartner
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 4.677

2.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels in perimodiolar electrode recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn A Berg; Jack H Noble; Benoit M Dawant; Robert T Dwyer; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  Effect of carrier bandwidth on integration of simulations of acoustic and electric hearing within or across ears.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Increasing the expression level of ChR2 enhances the optogenetic excitability of cochlear neurons.

Authors:  Xiankai Meng; Swetha Murali; Yen-Fu Cheng; Jingrong Lu; Ariel E Hight; Vivek V Kanumuri; M Christian Brown; Jeffrey R Holt; Daniel J Lee; Albert S B Edge
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Molly D Bergan; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 1.493

7.  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

8.  Speech recognition as a function of the number of channels for pediatric cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Linsey W Sunderhaus; Jourdan T Holder; Katelyn A Berg; Benoit M Dawant; Jack H Noble; Elizabeth Perkins; Stephen Camarata
Journal:  JASA Express Lett       Date:  2022-09

9.  Forward masking patterns by low and high-rate stimulation in cochlear implant users: Differences in masking effectiveness and spread of neural excitation.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Susannah Dixon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Ancestral Adeno-Associated Virus Vector Delivery of Opsins to Spiral Ganglion Neurons: Implications for Optogenetic Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Maria J Duarte; Vivek V Kanumuri; Lukas D Landegger; Osama Tarabichi; Sumi Sinha; Xiankai Meng; Ariel Edward Hight; Elliott D Kozin; Konstantina M Stankovic; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2018-07-13       Impact factor: 11.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.