Literature DB >> 30423498

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

Ning Zhou1, Juliana Mathews2, Lixue Dong2.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) users do not reliably associate an increase in pulse rate above 300 pulses per second (pps) with an increase in pitch. The locus of this upper limit of pitch remains unknown. The present study tested the hypothesis that this deficit resides at least initially at the auditory nerve. The hypothesis was tested by comparing pulse rate discrimination in different neural excitation patterns, in which a large versus small population of auditory nerve fibers was activated. If poorer pulse rate discrimination was found under conditions where narrower spread of neural excitation (SOE) was anticipated where a relatively small neural population was activated, then it would support the hypothesis that the rate processing deficit found in CI users is related to peripheral neural degeneration. Nine listeners (12 ears) implanted with the Cochlear Americas Nucleus® devices participated in the study. Different SOE conditions were created by (1) selecting electrodes that showed narrow versus broad forward-masked psychophysical spatial tuning curves, and (2) by measuring these electrodes in monopolar (MP) and narrow bipolar (BP0) electrode configurations. Rate discrimination difference limen (DL) was measured at the selected electrodes in two electrode configurations at three base rates (200, 300 and 500 pps). Consistent with the prediction, group mean DL was better (1) at stimulation sites measured with broader tuning, and (2) in MP relative to BP stimulation. These effects were more salient at the more challenging base rates. There was a weak relationship between rate discrimination (above thresholds) and the effect of rate on detection thresholds. Finally, rate discrimination at rates above the known upper limit (i.e., 500 pps) was correlated with duration of deafness and highly predicted the subjects' speech recognition performance in noise. These findings support that pulse rate discrimination depends, at least partially, on neural conditions at the auditory periphery and this peripheral limit predicts speech recognition outcomes with a CI.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multipulse integration; Speech recognition; Spread of excitation; Temporal processing

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30423498      PMCID: PMC6309496          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.10.018

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


  42 in total

1.  Pulse rate discrimination with deeply inserted electrode arrays.

Authors:  Uwe Baumann; Andrea Nobbe
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon; Chris van den Honert
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Limitations on rate discrimination.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Musical pitch perception with electrical stimulation of the cochlea.

Authors:  H J McDermott; C M McKay
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; Monica Padilla; Robert V Shannon; David M Landsberger
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-03-01       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

Authors:  Pieter J Venter; Johan J Hanekom
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-06-19

7.  Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response in peripherally myelin-deficient mice.

Authors:  R Zhou; P J Abbas; J G Assouline
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Temporal pitch perception at high rates in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ying-Yee Kong; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  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

10.  Temporal Regularity Detection and Rate Discrimination in Cochlear-Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Etienne Gaudrain; John M Deeks; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-09-29
View more
  5 in total

1.  Perception of speaker sincerity in complex social interactions by cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Kathrin Rothermich; Susannah Dixon; Marti Weiner; Madison Capps; Lixue Dong; Sébastien Paquette; Ning Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Perceptual learning of pitch provided by cochlear implant stimulation rate.

Authors:  Susan R S Bissmeyer; Shaikat Hossain; Raymond L Goldsworthy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Sensitivity to Pulse Phase Duration as a Marker of Neural Health Across Cochlear Implant Recipients and Electrodes.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Zhen Zhu; Lixue Dong; John Galvin
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-08

Review 4.  Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nikolai Bernhard; Ulrich Gauger; Eugenia Romo Ventura; Florian C Uecker; Heidi Olze; Steffen Knopke; Toni Hänsel; Annekatrin Coordes
Journal:  Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-04

5.  Rate Discrimination Training May Partially Restore Temporal Processing Abilities from Age-Related Deficits.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Lindsay DeVries; Edward Smith; Matthew J Goupell; Sandra Gordon-Salant
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-10
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.