Conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: Effects on loudness growth

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 50-56

  Hong, Robert S ^a   Rubinstein, Jay T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Loudness growth; Signal processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPRESSION; CONDITIONING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MAGNITUDE ESTIMATION METHOD; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; POWER ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STIMULUS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 29444453063     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mao.0000187045.73791.db     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Kiang NYS, Moxon EC. Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1972;81:714-30.
2. Liberman MC, Dodds LW. Single-neuron labeling and chronic cochlear pathology: II - stereocilia damage and alterations of spontaneous discharge rates. Hear Res 1984;16:43-5.
3. Rubinstein JT, Wilson BS, Finley CC, et al. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res 1999;127:108-1.
4. Rubinstein JT, Hong RS. Signal coding in cochlear implants: exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2003;112:14-9.
5. Collins JJ, Chow CC, Imhoff TT. Stochastic resonance without tuning. Nature 1995;376:236-8.
6. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT. High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:3327-42.
7. Rubinstein JT, Abbas PJ, Miller CA. The neurophysiological effects of simulated auditory prostheses stimulation. Eighth Quarterly Progress Report N01-DC-6-2111. Bethesda, MD: NIH Neural Prosthesis Program, 1998.
8. Litvak LM, Delgutte B, Eddington DK. Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electrical stimulation of auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:2079-98.
9. Litvak L, Delgutte B, Eddington D. Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. J Acoust Soc Am 2003;114:2099-111.
10. Runge-Samuelson C. Response of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation: effects of high-rate pulse trains. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa. 2002 (dissertation).
11. Hong RS, Rubinstein JT, Wehner D, et al. Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2003;24:590-5.
12. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49:467-7.
13. Gescheider GA, Hughson BA. Stimulus context and absolute magnitude estimation: a study of individual differences. Percept Psychophys 1991;50:45-57.
14. Marks LE. The slippery context effect in psychophysics: intensive, extensive, and qualitative continua. Percept Psychophys 1992;51:187-98.
15. Zeng FG, Shannon RV. Loudness-coding mechanisms inferred from electric stimulation of the human auditory system. Science 1994;264:564-6.
16. Chatterjee M, Fu Q-J, Shannon RV. Effects of phase duration and electrode separation on loudness growth in cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:1637-44.
17. McKay CM, Remine MD, McDermott HJ. Loudness summation for pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea: effects of rate, electrode separation, level, and mode of stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1514-2.
18. Relkin EM, Doucet JR. Is loudness simply proportional to the auditory nerve spike count? J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:2735-40.
19. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK, et al. Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear Res 1999;130:197-218.
20. Meyer TA, Chau FY, Chen H, et al. Effects of high-rate conditioning stimuli on intensity discrimination with cochlear implants. Presented at the 8th International Cochlear Implant Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, May 10-13, 2004.
21. Zeng FG, Galvin J. Amplitude mapping and phoneme recognition in cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 1999;20:60-74.
22. Boike K, Souza P. Effect of compression ratio on speech recognition and speech-quality ratings with wide dynamic range compression amplification. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000;43:456-68.