Literature DB >> 34988867

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

Michelle L Hughes1.   

Abstract

Stimulus polarity can affect both physiological and perceptual measures in cochlear-implant recipients. Large differences between polarities for various outcome measures (e.g., eCAP threshold, amplitude, or slope) theoretically reflect poorer neural health, whereas smaller differences reflect better neural health. Therefore, we expect large polarity effects to be correlated with other measures shown to contribute to poor neural health, such as advanced age or prolonged deafness. Our earlier studies using the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) demonstrated differences in polarity effects between users of Cochlear and Advanced Bionics devices when device-specific clinical pulse designs were used. Since the stimuli differed slightly between devices, the first goal of this study was to determine whether small, clinically relevant differences in pulse phase duration (PD) have a significant impact on eCAP polarity effects to potentially explain the device differences observed previously. Polarity effects were quantified as the difference in eCAP thresholds, mean normalized amplitudes, and slope of the amplitude growth function obtained for anodic-first versus cathodic-first biphasic pulses. The results showed that small variations in PD did not explain the observed differences in eCAP polarity effects between devices. Therefore, eCAP polarity sensitivity measures are relatively robust to small differences in pulse parameters. However, it remains unclear what underlies the observed manufacturer differences, which may limit the utility of eCAP polarity sensitivity measures. The second goal was to characterize polarity sensitivity in a large group of CI recipients (65 ears) to relate polarity sensitivity to age and duration of deafness as a proxy for neural health. The same pulse parameters were used for both device groups. The only significant predictors of eCAP polarity effects were age for threshold and amplitude polarity effects for Cochlear recipients and age and duration of deafness for slope for AB recipients. However, three of these four correlations were in the opposite direction of what was expected. These results suggest that eCAP polarity sensitivity measures likely reflect different mechanisms than the effects that age and duration of deafness induce on the peripheral auditory system.
© 2021. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  age; duration of deafness; electrically evoked compound action potential; polarity sensitivity; pulse phase duration

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34988867      PMCID: PMC8964872          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-021-00824-0

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


  41 in total

1.  Analysis of monophasic and biphasic electrical stimulation of nerve.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; C A Miller; H Mino; P J Abbas
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sangsook Choi; Erin Glickman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The response of the myelinated nerve fiber to short duration biphasic stimulating currents.

Authors:  C van den Honert; J T Mortimer
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1979       Impact factor: 3.934

4.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings.

Authors:  C van den Honert; P H Stypulkowski
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Biophysical considerations in electrical stimulation of the auditory nervous system.

Authors:  G E Loeb; M W White; W M Jenkins
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 5.691

6.  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

7.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Physiological Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Spread of excitation varies for different electrical pulse shapes and stimulation modes in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Jan Wouters; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Evaluating Psychophysical Polarity Sensitivity as an Indirect Estimate of Neural Status in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-04

10.  Forward-masking patterns produced by symmetric and asymmetric pulse shapes in electric hearing.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Ingeborg Dhooge; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.