Literature DB >> 8865646

Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation.

D A Nelson1, J L Schmitz, G S Donaldson, N F Viemeister, E Javel.   

Abstract

Difference limens (DLs) for changes in electric current were measured from multiple electrodes in each of eight cochlear-implanted subjects. Stimuli were 200-microseconds/phase biphasic pulse trains delivered at 125 Hz in 300-ms bursts. DLs were measured with an adaptive three-alternative forced-choice procedure. Fixed-level psychometric functions were also obtained in four subjects to validate the adaptive DLs. Relative intensity DLs, specified as Weber fractions in decibels [10 log (delta I/I)] for standards above absolute threshold, decreased as a power function of stimulus intensity relative to absolute threshold [delta I/I = beta (I/I0) alpha] in the same manner as Weber fractions for normal acoustic stimulation reported in previous studies. Exponents (alpha) of the power function for electric stimulation ranged from -0.4 to -3.2, on average, an order of magnitude larger than exponents for acoustic stimulation, which range from -0.07 to -0.11. Normalization of stimulus intensity to the dynamic range of hearing resulted in Weber functions with similar negative slopes for electric and acoustic stimulation, corresponding to an 8-dB average improvement in Weber fractions across the dynamic range. Sensitivity to intensity change ¿10 log beta¿ varied from -0.42 to -13.5 dB compared to +0.60 to -3.34 dB for acoustic stimulation, but on average was better with electric stimulation than with acoustic stimulation. Psychometric functions for intensity discrimination yielded Weber fractions consistent with adaptive procedures and d' was a linear function of delta I. Variability among repeated Weber-fraction estimates was constant across dynamic range. Relatively constant Weber fractions across all or part of the dynamic range, observed in some subjects, were traced to the intensity resolution limits of individual implanted receiver/stimulators. DLs could not be accurately described by constant amplitude changes, expressed as a percentage of dynamic range ¿delta A(% DR)¿. Weber fractions from prelingually deafened subjects were no better or worse than those from postlingually deafened subjects. The cumulative number of discriminable intensity steps across the dynamic range of electric hearing ranged from as few as 6.6 to as many as 45.2. Physiologic factors that may determine important features of electric intensity discrimination are discussed in the context of a simple, qualitative, rate-based model. These factors include the lack of compressive cochlear preprocessing, the relative steepness of neural rate-intensity functions, and individual differences in patterns of neural survival.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8865646     DOI: 10.1121/1.417949

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


  22 in total

1.  Combined spectral and temporal enhancement to improve cochlear-implant speech perception.

Authors:  Aparajita Bhattacharya; Andrew Vandali; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  A psychophysical method for measuring spatial resolution in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2011-10-15

3.  Current-level discrimination in the context of interleaved, multichannel stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of number of stimulated electrodes, pulse rate, and electrode separation.

Authors:  Ward R Drennan; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-06-21

4.  Spatially distinct functional output regions within the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus: implications for an auditory midbrain implant.

Authors:  Hubert H Lim; David J Anderson
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Rose A Burkholder-Juhasz; Teresa A Zwolan; Li Xu
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-11-28       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Effects of electrode separation between speech and noise signals on consonant identification in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bom Jun Kwon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 7.  Auditory midbrain implant: a review.

Authors:  Hubert H Lim; Minoo Lenarz; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2009-09

8.  Amplitude modulation and loudness in cochlear implantees.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-10-02

9.  Intensity Discrimination and Speech Recognition of Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Natalie Rickard; Katherine Henshall
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-17

Review 10.  Trends in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2004
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.