Literature DB >> 8207139

Pitch perception for different modes of stimulation using the cochlear multiple-electrode prosthesis.

P A Busby1, L A Whitford, P J Blamey, L M Richardson, G M Clark.   

Abstract

Numerical estimations of pitch were obtained from nine postlinguistically deafened adults using the 22-electrode cochlear implant manufactured by Cochlear Pty. Limited. A series of electrodes on the array were stimulated using three modes of stimulation: Bipolar (BP), common ground (CG), and monopolar (MONO). In BP stimulation, an electric current was passed between two electrodes separated by one electrode for eight patients and two electrodes for one patient. In CG stimulation, a single electrode was activated and the other electrodes on the array were connected together to serve as the return path for the current. In MONO stimulation, an electric current was passed between a single electrode and the most basal electrode on the array. Pitch estimations were generally consistent with the tonotopic organization of the cochlea. There was a marked reversal in pitch for electrodes in the middle of the array using CG stimulation for three patients. A reduced range of pitch using MONO stimulation was recorded for patients where the most basal electrode was internal to the cochlea. There were also individual differences in pitch estimations between the three modes of stimulation for most patients. The current levels required to elicit threshold (T) and comfortable listening (C) levels were, in general, higher for BP stimulation than for CG stimulation and were lowest for MONO stimulation. For CG stimulation, there was a tendency for T and C levels to be higher for electrodes in the middle of the array than at the basal or apical ends. For MONO stimulation, T and C levels uniformly increased in an apical to basal direction for the majority of patients. There was no consistent pattern in T and C levels for BP stimulation. The size of the range of usable hearing using CG stimulation tended to be similar to that using BP stimulation and was usually higher than that using MONO stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8207139     DOI: 10.1121/1.409835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  17 in total

Review 1.  The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

3.  Multichannel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-05-27

Review 4.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

5.  Topographic spread of inferior colliculus activation in response to acoustic and intracochlear electric stimulation.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; Julie A Bierer; John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-08-12

6.  Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting.

Authors:  Mathieu Gani; Gregory Valentini; Alain Sigrist; Maria-Izabel Kós; Colette Boëx
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2007-01-11

7.  Optical parameter variability in laser nerve stimulation: a study of pulse duration, repetition rate, and wavelength.

Authors:  Agnella D Izzo; Joseph T Walsh; E Duco Jansen; Mark Bendett; Jim Webb; Heather Ralph; Claus-Peter Richter
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.538

8.  Laser stimulation of auditory neurons: effect of shorter pulse duration and penetration depth.

Authors:  Agnella D Izzo; Joseph T Walsh; Heather Ralph; Jim Webb; Mark Bendett; Jonathon Wells; Claus-Peter Richter
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 4.033

9.  The multichannel cochlear implant for severe-to-profound hearing loss.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 53.440

10.  MUSIC APPRECIATION AND TRAINING FOR COCHLEAR IMPLANT RECIPIENTS: A REVIEW.

Authors:  Valerie Looi; Kate Gfeller; Virginia Driscoll
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2012-11-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.