Literature DB >> 28150534

Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection

Ning Zhou1, Lixue Dong1.   

Abstract

In electrical hearing, multipulse integration (MPI) describes the rate at which detection threshold decreases with increasing stimulation rate in a fixed-duration pulse train. In human subjects, MPI has been shown to be dependent on the psychophysically estimated spread of neural excitation at a high stimulation rate, with broader spread predicting greater integration. The first aim of the present study was to replicate this finding using alternative methods for measuring MPI and spread of neural excitation. The second aim was to test the hypothesis that MPI is related to the slope of the psychometric function for detection. Specifically, a steep d' versus stimulus level function would predict shallow MPI since the amount of current reduction necessary to compensate for an increase in stimulation rate to maintain threshold would be small. The MPI function was measured by obtaining adaptive detection thresholds at 160 and 640 pulses per second. Spread of neural excitation was measured by forward-masked psychophysical tuning curves. All psychophysical testing was performed in a monopolar stimulation mode (MP 1 + 2). Results showed that MPI was correlated with the slopes of the tuning curves, with broader tuning predicting steeper MPI, confirming the earlier finding. However, there was no relationship between MPI and the slopes of the psychometric functions. These results suggest that a broad stimulation of the cochlea facilitates MPI. MPI however is not related to the estimated neural excitation growth with current level near the behavioral threshold, at least in monopolar stimulation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implants; multipulse integration; psychometric functions for detection; psychophysical tuning curves

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28150534      PMCID: PMC5308440          DOI: 10.1177/2331216517690108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trends Hear        ISSN: 2331-2165            Impact factor:   3.293


  39 in total

1.  Examining the auditory nerve fiber response to high rate cochlear implant stimulation: chronic sensorineural hearing loss and facilitation.

Authors:  Leon F Heffer; David J Sly; James B Fallon; Mark W White; Robert K Shepherd; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  F G Zeng; R V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Temporal integration of trains of tone pulses by normal and by cochlearly impaired listeners.

Authors:  R P Carlyon; S Buus; M Florentine
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Examining the electro-neural interface of cochlear implant users using psychophysics, CT scans, and speech understanding.

Authors:  Christopher J Long; Timothy A Holden; Gary H McClelland; Wendy S Parkinson; Clough Shelton; David C Kelsall; Zachary M Smith
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-30

5.  Intensity coding in electric hearing: effects of electrode configurations and stimulation waveforms.

Authors:  Tiffany Elise H Chua; Mark Bachman; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Adaptation in auditory-nerve fibers: a revised model.

Authors:  R L Smith; M L Brachman
Journal:  Biol Cybern       Date:  1982       Impact factor: 2.086

8.  Temporal response properties of the auditory nerve: data from human cochlear-implant recipients.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Erin E Castioni; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 9.  Peripheral auditory adaptation and fatigue: a model oriented review.

Authors:  J J Eggermont
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Monopolar Detection Thresholds Predict Spatial Selectivity of Neural Excitation in Cochlear Implants: Implications for Speech Recognition.

Authors:  Ning Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  9 in total

1.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Mingqi Hang
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-30

2.  Temporal Modulation Detection Depends on Sharpness of Spatial Tuning.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Matthew Cadmus; Lixue Dong; Juliana Mathews
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-04-25

3.  Pulse-rate discrimination deficit in cochlear implant users: is the upper limit of pitch peripheral or central?

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Juliana Mathews; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Longitudinal effect of deactivating stimulation sites based on low-rate thresholds on speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.117

5.  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

6.  Comparing Rapid and Traditional Forward-Masked Spatial Tuning Curves in Cochlear-Implant Users.

Authors:  Heather A Kreft; Lindsay A DeVries; Julie G Arenberg; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

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.  The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Wiebke Lamping; John M Deeks; Jeremy Marozeau; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-08-17

9.  Evaluating and Comparing Behavioural and Electrophysiological Estimates of Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Tim Brochier; François Guérit; John M Deeks; Charlotte Garcia; Manohar Bance; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-11-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.