Literature DB >> 27374479

Place dependent stimulation rates improve pitch perception in cochlear implantees with single-sided deafness.

Tobias Rader1, Julia Döge1, Youssef Adel1, Tobias Weissgerber1, Uwe Baumann2.   

Abstract

In normal hearing, the pitch of an acoustic tone can theoretically be encoded by either the place of stimulation in the cochlea or the corresponding rate of vibration. Thus spectral attributes and temporal fine structure of an acoustic signal are naturally correlated. Cochlear implants (CIs), neural prosthetic devices that restore hearing in the profoundly hearing impaired, currently disregard this mechanism; electrical stimulation is provided at fixed electrode positions with default place independent stimulation rate assignments. This does not account for individual cochlear encoding depending on electrode array placement, variations in insertion depth, and the proximity to nerve fibers. Encoding pitch in such manner delivers limited tonal information. Consequently, music appraisal in CI users is often rated cacophonic while speech perception in quiet is close to normal in top performers. We hypothesize that this limitation in electric stimulation is at least partially due to the mismatch between frequency and place encoding in CIs. In the present study, we determined individual electrode locations by analysis of cochlear radiographic images obtained after surgery and calculated place dependent stimulation rates according to models of the normal tonotopic function. Pitch matching in CI users with single-sided deafness shows that place dependent stimulation rates allow thus far unparalleled restoration of tonotopic pitch perception. Collapsed data of matched pitch frequencies as a function of calculated electrical stimulation rate were well fitted by linear regression (R(2) = 0.878). Sound processing strategies incorporating place dependent stimulation rates are expected to improve pitch perception in CI users.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Frequency-place mismatch; Pitch perception; Place dependent stimulation; Single-sided deafness

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27374479     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2016.06.013

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


  13 in total

1.  Hearing rehabilitation for unilateral deafness using a cochlear implant: the influence of the subjective duration of deafness on speech intelligibility.

Authors:  Tobias Rader; Oliver Julian Waleka; Sebastian Strieth; Klaus Wolfgang Georg Eichhorn; Andrea Bohnert; Dimitrios Koutsimpelas; Christoph Matthias; Benjamin Philipp Ernst
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-07-06       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Advantages of Pulse Rate Compared to Modulation Frequency for Temporal Pitch Perception in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Susan R S Bissmeyer; Andres Camarena
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-03

3.  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

Review 4.  Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.

Authors:  Jason H Barnes; Linda X Yin; Aniket A Saoji; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-06-04

5.  Comparison of Speech Recognition With an Organ of Corti Versus Spiral Ganglion Frequency-to-Place Function in Place-Based Mapping of Cochlear Implant and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 2.619

6.  An automated A-value measurement tool for accurate cochlear duct length estimation.

Authors:  John E Iyaniwura; Mai Elfarnawany; Hanif M Ladak; Sumit K Agrawal
Journal:  J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2018-01-22

7.  Investigation of the effect of cochlear implant electrode length on speech comprehension in quiet and noise compared with the results with users of electro-acoustic-stimulation, a retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Büchner; Angelika Illg; Omid Majdani; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Modeling Pitch Perception With an Active Auditory Model Extended by Octopus Cells.

Authors:  Tamas Harczos; Frank Markus Klefenz
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Pitch Matching in Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness: Effects of Electrode Position and Acoustic Stimulus Type.

Authors:  Youssef Adel; Sharon Nagel; Tobias Weissgerber; Uwe Baumann; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Long-Term Influence of Electrode Array Length on Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Craig A Buchman; Emily Buss; Brendan P O'Connell; Meredith A Rooth; English R King; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Kevin D Brown
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.