Literature DB >> 9367245

Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants.

B E Pfingst1, T A Zwolan, L A Holloway.   

Abstract

Effects of electrode configuration and pulse duration on operating levels and on speech recognition performance were studied in a group of 14 adult postlingually deaf human subjects with Nucleus cochlear implants. The operating levels (based on detection threshold and maximum comfortable loudness levels) for narrowly spaced bipolar (BP) stimulation were found to be about 11 dB higher on average than those for widely spaced bipolar (BP+6) or monopolar (MP1) stimulation. Operating levels for common ground (CG) stimulation fell between those for BP and BP+6; the difference between BP and CG detection thresholds depended on pulse duration. Variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels across the electrode array (electrodes 1-15) was larger for BP and CG stimulation than for BP+6 or MP1 stimulation, suggesting narrower spread of activation for the BP and CG configurations despite the higher current levels. Speech recognition performance was tested using experimental processor configurations. Among the experimental electrode configurations tested (BP, CG, and BP+6), the highest speech recognition scores were obtained with the BP+6 configuration in many subjects. Effects of pulse duration on speech recognition were less consistent and usually smaller than the effects of electrode configuration. The results indicate that electrode configuration is an important variable determining speech recognition performance and suggest that restriction of the size of neural population activated by individual channels of the prosthesis is not necessarily advantageous.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9367245     DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(97)00122-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; John J Galvin; Qian-Jie Fu; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-11-04

3.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mohamed Bingabr; Blas Espinoza-Varas; Philipos C Loizou
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Cochlear-implant high pulse rate and narrow electrode configuration impair transmission of temporal information to the auditory cortex.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  Auditory midbrain implant: a review.

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

9.  Binaural unmasking with multiple adjacent masking electrodes in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Thomas Lu; Ruth Litovsky; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  The perception of emotion and focus prosody with varying acoustic cues in cochlear implant simulations with varying filter slopes.

Authors:  Daan J van de Velde; Niels O Schiller; Vincent J van Heuven; Claartje C Levelt; Joost van Ginkel; Mieke Beers; Jeroen J Briaire; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.