Literature DB >> 28138791

Effect of Pulse Polarity on Thresholds and on Non-monotonic Loudness Growth in Cochlear Implant Users.

Olivier Macherey1, Robert P Carlyon2, Jacques Chatron3, Stéphane Roman4.   

Abstract

Most cochlear implants (CIs) activate their electrodes non-simultaneously in order to eliminate electrical field interactions. However, the membrane of auditory nerve fibers needs time to return to its resting state, causing the probability of firing to a pulse to be affected by previous pulses. Here, we provide new evidence on the effect of pulse polarity and current level on these interactions. In experiment 1, detection thresholds and most comfortable levels (MCLs) were measured in CI users for 100-Hz pulse trains consisting of two consecutive biphasic pulses of the same or of opposite polarity. All combinations of polarities were studied: anodic-cathodic-anodic-cathodic (ACAC), CACA, ACCA, and CAAC. Thresholds were lower when the adjacent phases of the two pulses had the same polarity (ACCA and CAAC) than when they were different (ACAC and CACA). Some subjects showed a lower threshold for ACCA than for CAAC while others showed the opposite trend demonstrating that polarity sensitivity at threshold is genuine and subject- or electrode-dependent. In contrast, anodic (CAAC) pulses always showed a lower MCL than cathodic (ACCA) pulses, confirming previous reports. In experiments 2 and 3, the subjects compared the loudness of several pulse trains differing in current level separately for ACCA and CAAC. For 40 % of the electrodes tested, loudness grew non-monotonically as a function of current level for ACCA but never for CAAC. This finding may relate to a conduction block of the action potentials along the fibers induced by a strong hyperpolarization of their central processes. Further analysis showed that the electrodes showing a lower threshold for ACCA than for CAAC were more likely to yield a non-monotonic loudness growth. It is proposed that polarity sensitivity at threshold reflects the local neural health and that anodic asymmetric pulses should preferably be used to convey sound information while avoiding abnormal loudness percepts.

Entities:  

Keywords:  auditory nerve; cathodal block; channel interactions; facilitation; polarity sensitivity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28138791      PMCID: PMC5418159          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-016-0614-4

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


  29 in total

1.  The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system.

Authors:  F Rattay
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.590

Review 2.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

3.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson; C C Finley; D T Lawson; R D Wolford; D K Eddington; W M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1991-07-18       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Polarity effects on place pitch and loudness for three cochlear-implant designs and at different cochlear sites.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans.

Authors:  J B Nadol; J Y Shiao; B J Burgess; D R Ketten; D K Eddington; B J Gantz; I Kos; P Montandon; N J Coker; J T Roland; J K Shallop
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.547

6.  Effects of phase duration on detection of electrical stimulation of the human cochlea.

Authors:  A K Moon; T A Zwolan; B E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Effects of Pulse Shape and Polarity on Sensitivity to Cochlear Implant Stimulation: A Chronic Study in Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Yves Cazals
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-05-20

9.  Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation.

Authors:  C A Miller; P J Abbas; J T Rubinstein; B K Robinson; A J Matsuoka; G Woodworth
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Re-examining the upper limit of temporal pitch.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  19 in total

1.  What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sangsook Choi; Erin Glickman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  The effect of polarity order and electrode-activation order on loudness in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ann E Todd; David M Landsberger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Quentin Mesnildrey; Frédéric Venail; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-04

4.  Simulated auditory nerve axon demyelination alters sensitivity and response timing to extracellular stimulation.

Authors:  Jesse M Resnick; Gabrielle E O'Brien; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  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

6.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Stefano Cosentino; John M Deeks; Wendy Parkinson; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-07

7.  Musical Sound Quality as a Function of the Number of Channels in Modern Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Katelyn Berg; Jack Noble; Benoit Dawant; Robert Dwyer; Robert Labadie; Virginia Richards; René Gifford
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  A Site-Selection Strategy Based on Polarity Sensitivity for Cochlear Implants: Effects on Spectro-Temporal Resolution and Speech Perception.

Authors:  Tobias Goehring; Alan Archer-Boyd; John M Deeks; Julie G Arenberg; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-06-03

9.  Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-04

10.  The Effect of Pulse Polarity on Neural Response of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency and Children With Normal-Sized Cochlear Nerves.

Authors:  Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Jianfen Luo; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Haibo Wang; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.