Literature DB >> 28688755

Simultaneous masking between electric and acoustic stimulation in cochlear implant users with residual low-frequency hearing.

Benjamin Krüger1, Andreas Büchner2, Waldo Nogueira3.   

Abstract

Ipsilateral electric-acoustic stimulation (EAS) is becoming increasingly important in cochlear implant (CI) treatment. Improvements in electrode designs and surgical techniques have contributed to improved hearing preservation during implantation. Consequently, CI implantation criteria have been expanded toward people with significant residual low-frequency hearing, who may benefit from the combined use of both the electric and acoustic stimulation in the same ear. However, only few studies have investigated the mutual interaction between electric and acoustic stimulation modalities. This work characterizes the interaction between both stimulation modalities using psychophysical masking experiments and cone beam computer tomography (CBCT). Two psychophysical experiments for electric and acoustic masking were performed to measure the hearing threshold elevation of a probe stimulus in the presence of a masker stimulus. For electric masking, the probe stimulus was an acoustic tone while the masker stimulus was an electric pulse train. For acoustic masking, the probe stimulus was an electric pulse train and the masker stimulus was an acoustic tone. Five EAS users, implanted with a CI and ipsilateral residual low-frequency hearing, participated in the study. Masking was determined at different electrodes and different acoustic frequencies. CBCT scans were used to determine the individual place-pitch frequencies of the intracochlear electrode contacts by using the Stakhovskaya place-to-frequency transformation. This allows the characterization of masking as a function of the difference between electric and acoustic stimulation sites, which we term the electric-acoustic frequency difference (EAFD). The results demonstrate a significant elevation of detection thresholds for both experiments. In electric masking, acoustic-tone thresholds increased exponentially with decreasing EAFD. In contrast, for the acoustic masking experiment, threshold elevations were present regardless of the tested EAFDs. Based on the present findings, we conclude that there is an asymmetry between the electric and the acoustic masker modalities. These observations have implications for the design and fitting of EAS sound-coding strategies.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28688755     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.06.014

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


  7 in total

1.  Forward Electric Stimulation-Induced Interference in Intracochlear Electrocochleography of Acoustic Stimulation in the Cochlea of Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Shiyao Min; Tianhao Lu; Min Chen; Jiabao Mao; Xuerui Hu; Shufeng Li
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 5.152

2.  Effect of Place-Based Versus Default Mapping Procedures on Masked Speech Recognition: Simulations of Cochlear Implant Alone and Electric-Acoustic Stimulation.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Brendan P O'Connell; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 1.636

3.  Effectiveness of Place-based Mapping in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Devices.

Authors:  Margaret T Dillon; Michael W Canfarotta; Emily Buss; Joseph Hopfinger; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Interaction Between Electric and Acoustic Stimulation Influences Speech Perception in Ipsilateral EAS Users.

Authors:  Marina Imsiecke; Benjamin Krüger; Andreas Büchner; Thomas Lenarz; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Phantom Stimulation for Cochlear Implant Users With Residual Low-Frequency Hearing.

Authors:  Benjamin Krüger; Andreas Büchner; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.562

6.  Integration of acoustic and electric hearing is better in the same ear than across ears.

Authors:  Qian-Jie Fu; John J Galvin; Xiaosong Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Effects of noise on integration of acoustic and electric hearing within and across ears.

Authors:  Shelby Willis; Brian C J Moore; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.