Literature DB >> 32020417

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

Quentin Mesnildrey1, Frédéric Venail2, Robert P Carlyon3, Olivier Macherey4.   

Abstract

Cochlear implant (CI) performance varies dramatically between subjects. Although the causes of this variability remain unclear, the electrode-neuron interface is thought to play an important role. Here we evaluate the contribution of two parameters of this interface on the perception of CI listeners: the electrode-to-modiolar wall distance (EMD), estimated from cone-beam computed tomography (CT) scans, and a measure of neural health. Since there is no objective way to quantify neural health in CI users, we measure stimulus polarity sensitivity, which is assumed to be related to neural degeneration, and investigate whether it also correlates with subjects' performance in speech recognition and spectro-temporal modulation detection tasks. Detection thresholds were measured in fifteen CI users (sixteen ears) for partial-tripolar triphasic pulses having an anodic or a cathodic central phase. The polarity effect was defined as the difference in threshold between cathodic and anodic stimuli. Our results show that both the EMD and the polarity effect correlate with detection thresholds, both across and within subjects, although the within-subject correlations were weak. Furthermore, the mean polarity effect, averaged across all electrodes for each subject, was negatively correlated with performance on a spectro-temporal modulation detection task. In other words, lower cathodic thresholds were associated with better spectro-temporal modulation detection performance, which is also consistent with polarity sensitivity being a marker of neural degeneration. Implications for the design of future subject-specific fitting strategies are discussed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cochlear implant; computed tomography scans; neural degeneration; polarity

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32020417      PMCID: PMC7062980          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-020-00742-7

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


  58 in total

1.  Spectral-ripple resolution correlates with speech reception in noise in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-06-21

2.  Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics.

Authors:  Ben H Bonham; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Effects of simulated spectral holes on speech intelligibility and spatial release from masking under binaural and monaural listening.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Ruth Y Litovsky; Gongqiang Yu; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance.

Authors:  Elaine Saunders; Lawrence Cohen; Antje Aschendorff; William Shapiro; Michelle Knight; Mathias Stecker; Benhard Richter; Susan Waltzman; Michael Tykocinski; Tom Roland; Roland Laszig; Robert Cowan
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival.

Authors:  Pavel Prado-Guitierrez; Leonie M Fewster; John M Heasman; Colette M McKay; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human.

Authors:  Takefumi Kamakura; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  The human spiral ganglion: new insights into ultrastructure, survival rate and implications for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Rudolf Glueckert; Kristian Pfaller; Anders Kinnefors; Helge Rask-Andersen; Anneliese Schrott-Fischer
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-05-27       Impact factor: 1.854

8.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients.

Authors:  Peter Blamey; Françoise Artieres; Deniz Başkent; François Bergeron; Andy Beynon; Elaine Burke; Norbert Dillier; Richard Dowell; Bernard Fraysse; Stéphane Gallégo; Paul J Govaerts; Kevin Green; Alexander M Huber; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Bert Maat; Mathieu Marx; Deborah Mawman; Isabelle Mosnier; Alec Fitzgerald O'Connor; Stephen O'Leary; Alexandra Rousset; Karen Schauwers; Henryk Skarzynski; Piotr H Skarzynski; Olivier Sterkers; Assia Terranti; Eric Truy; Paul Van de Heyning; Fréderic Venail; Christophe Vincent; Diane S Lazard
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Relationship between multipulse integration and speech recognition with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Cochlea size variability and implications in clinical practice.

Authors:  P Pelliccia; F Venail; A Bonafé; M Makeieff; G Iannetti; M Bartolomeo; M Mondain
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.124

View more
  8 in total

1.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

2.  Estimating health of the implanted cochlea using psychophysical strength-duration functions and electrode configuration.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Deborah J Colesa; Donald L Swiderski; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  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

4.  Assessing the relationship between neural health measures and speech performance with simultaneous electric stimulation in cochlear implant listeners.

Authors:  Florian Langner; Julie G Arenberg; Andreas Büchner; Waldo Nogueira
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Cochlear Implant Research and Development in the Twenty-first Century: A Critical Update.

Authors:  Robert P Carlyon; Tobias Goehring
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-08-25

6.  Effect of the Relative Timing between Same-Polarity Pulses on Thresholds and Loudness in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  François Guérit; Jeremy Marozeau; Bastian Epp; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-08-24

7.  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

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.