Literature DB >> 2794250

Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea.

H H Lim1, Y C Tong, G M Clark.   

Abstract

Three psychophysical forward masking studies were conducted on a multichannel cochlear implant patient. The first study investigated the masking pattern produced by a bipolar electrode pair at different stimulus currents. It was found that the masking pattern for a single-masker bipolar electrode pair had a maximum located at an electrode position where the masker and probe coincided. The spread of the masking pattern was not symmetrical about the maximum. The amount of masking decreased very rapidly toward the apical direction and less rapidly toward the basal direction from the position of the maximum. As the stimulus current increased, the amount of masking at the maximum increased and the masking pattern broadened toward the base. The second study investigated the masking pattern produced by the activation of single bipolar electrode pairs with different spatial extents. The spatial extent of a bipolar electrode pair is defined as the distance between the apical and basal electrode members of the bipolar pair. With a small spatial extent (1.5 mm), the more basal electrode pairs (higher threshold and smaller dynamic range) produced broader masking patterns than the more apical electrode pairs (lower threshold and wider dynamic range), suggesting that there was more current spread at the basal region. With a larger spatial extent (4.5 mm), an additional secondary masking maximum was observed in the vicinity of the apical electrode member of the masker; this was observed only when the apical electrode member lay within the low-threshold apical region. The third study investigated the masking patterns produced by two loudness balanced bipolar masker electrode pairs activated within a stimulus period (inverse of the pulse repetition rate). The biphasic current pulses delivered to the two electrode pairs were nonoverlapping in time. It was found that, at any probe electrode position, the amount of masking produced by the two combined bipolar electrode pairs approximately followed the greater of the two maskings produced respectively by the two individual bipolar masker electrode pairs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2794250     DOI: 10.1121/1.398732

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


  20 in total

1.  Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intracochlear electric stimulation.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; Julie A Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-08-12

2.  Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-11-04

3.  Temporal masking in electric hearing.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Hongbin Chen; Shilong Han
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-12

4.  Current-level discrimination in the context of interleaved, multichannel stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of number of stimulated electrodes, pulse rate, and electrode separation.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-06-21

5.  Loudness adaptation in acoustic and electric hearing.

Authors:  Qing Tang; Sheng Liu; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-01-20

6.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  David A Nelson; Gail S Donaldson; Heather Kreft
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds.

Authors:  Golbarg Mehraei; Andreu Paredes Gallardo; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Torsten Dau
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.