Literature DB >> 30706216

The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Emily R Spitzer1,2, Sangsook Choi1, Michelle L Hughes3,4.   

Abstract

Although modern cochlear implants (CIs) use cathodic-leading symmetrical biphasic pulses to stimulate the auditory nerve, a growing body of evidence suggests that anodic-leading pulses may be more effective. The positive polarity has been shown to produce larger electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) amplitudes, steeper slope of the amplitude growth function, and broader spread of excitation (SOE) patterns. Polarity has also been shown to influence pitch perception. It remains unclear how polarity affects the relation between physiological SOE and psychophysical pitch perception. Using a within-subject design, we examined the correlation between performance on a pitch-ranking task and spatial separation between SOE patterns for anodic and cathodic-leading symmetric biphasic pulses for 14 CI ears. Overall, there was no effect of polarity on either ECAP SOE patterns, pitch ranking performance, or the relation between the two. This result is likely due the use of symmetric biphasic pulses, which may have reduced the size of the effect previously observed for pseudomonophasic pulses. Further research is needed to determine if a pseudomonophasic stimulus might further improve the relation between physiology and pitch perception.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biphasic stimuli; electrical stimulation; electrically evoked compound action potential

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30706216      PMCID: PMC6513951          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-018-00712-0

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


  34 in total

1.  A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. II. Influence of the three-dimensional cochlear structure on neural excitability.

Authors:  F Rattay; R N Leao; H Felix
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; E Javel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The perceptual effects of interphase gap duration in cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential.

Authors:  P J Abbas; C J Brown; J K Shallop; J B Firszt; M L Hughes; S H Hong; S J Staller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Effect of deep insertion of the cochlear implant electrode array on pitch estimation and speech perception.

Authors:  Jafar Hamzavi; Christoph Arnoldner
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. I. Contribution of neural substructures to the generation and propagation of spikes.

Authors:  F Rattay; P Lutter; H Felix
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.208

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.  The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants.

Authors:  J H Frijns; J J Briaire; J J Grote
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon; Astrid van Wieringen; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-02-21
View more
  4 in total

1.  Characterizing Polarity Sensitivity in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Demographic Effects and Potential Implications for Estimating Neural Health.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-06

2.  Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; François Guérit; John M Deeks; Andrew Harland; Robin Gransier; Jan Wouters; Simone R de Rijk; Manohar Bance
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-01-25

3.  Word Recognition and Frequency Selectivity in Cochlear Implant Simulation: Effect of Channel Interaction.

Authors:  Pierre-Antoine Cucis; Christian Berger-Vachon; Hung Thaï-Van; Ruben Hermann; Stéphane Gallego; Eric Truy
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.241

4.  Polarity Sensitivity of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers Based on Pulse Shape, Cochlear Implant Stimulation Strategy and Array.

Authors:  Amirreza Heshmat; Sogand Sajedi; Anneliese Schrott-Fischer; Frank Rattay
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 4.677

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.