Simulating the effect of spread of excitation in cochlear implants

Hearing Research

Volumn 241, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 73-79

  Bingabr, Mohamed ^a   Espinoza Varas, Blas ^b   Loizou, Philipos C ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER   (United States)

^c The University of Texas at Dallas   (United States)

Author keywords

Bipolar; Cochlear implant; Current spread; Monopolar; Vocoder

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTRODE; EXCITATION; HEARING; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; SPEECH; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; MATERIALS TESTING; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 45649084537     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.04.012     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Black R.C., Clark G.M., and Patrick J.F. Current distribution measurement within the human cochlea. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 28 (1981) 721-724
2. Black R.C., Clark G.M., Tong Y.C., and Patrick J.F. Current distribution in cochlear stimulation. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 405 (1983) 137-145
3. Boëx C., de Balthasar C., Maria-Izabel K., and Pelizzone M. Electrical filed interactions in different cochlear implant systems. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114 4 (2003) 2049-2057
4. Chatterjee M. Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105 (1999) 850-860
5. Dorman M., and Loizou P. Speech intelligibility as a function of the number of channels of stimulation for normal-hearing listeners and patients with cochlear implants. The Am. J. Otol. 18 (1997) S113-S114
6. Fishman K., Shannon R., and Slattery W. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant processor. J. Speech Hear. Res. 40 (1997) 1201-1215
7. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., and Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 2 (2001) 1150-1163
8. Fu Q., and Shannon R. Frequency mapping in cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 23 (2002) 339-348
9. Fu Q., and Nogaki G. Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: the role of spectral resolution and smearing. JARO 6 (2004) 19-27
10. Greenwood D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species - 29 years later. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87 (1990) 2592-2605
11. Hartmann R., and Klinke R. Impulse patterns of auditory nerve fibres to extra and intracochlear electrical stimulation. Acta Oto-Laryngol. 469 Suppl (1990) 128-134
12. Keurs M., Festen J., and Plomp R. Effect of spectral envelope smearing on speech reception: I. J. Acoust Soc. Am. 91 5 (1992) 2872-2880
13. Kral A., Hartmann R., Mortazavi D., and Klinke R. Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents. Hear. Res. 121 (1998) 11-28
14. Kwon B., and van den Honert C. Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119 5 (2006) 2994-3002
15. Lehnhardt E., Gnadeberg D., Battmer R.D., and von Wallenberg E.L. Evaluation of different coding strategies and stimulation modes for the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. In: Yanagihara N., and Suzuki J. (Eds). Transplants and Implants in Otology (1992), Kugler, New York 283-290
16. Nelson D., Donaldson G., and Kreft H. Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123 (2008) 1522-1543
17. Nilsson M., Soli S., and Sullivan J. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95 (1994) 1085-1099
18. Morris D.J., and Pfingst B.E. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. JARO 1 (2001) 211-223
19. O'Leary S., Black R., and Clard G. Current distributions in the cat cochlea. Hear. Res. 18 (1985) 273-281
20. Peterson G.E., and Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 27 (1962) 62-70
21. Pfingst B.E., Zwolan T.A., and Holloway L.A. Effects of stimulus configuration on psychophysical operating levels and on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 112 (1997) 247-260
22. Pfingst B., Franck K., Xu L., Bauer E., and Zwolan T. Effects of electrode configuration and place of stimulation on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J. Assoc. Res. Otol. 2 (2001) 87-103
23. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., and Wygonski J. Speech recognition with altered spectral distribution of envelope cues. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 (1998) 2467-2476
24. Stickney G., Loizou P., Mishra L., Assmann P., Shannon R., and Opie J. Effects of electrode design and configuration on channel interactions. Hear. Res. 211 (2006) 33-45
25. van den Honert C., and Stypulkowski P.H. Single fiber mapping of spatial excitation patterns in the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Hear. Res. 29 (1987) 195-206
26. Zeng F., Grant G., Niparko J., Galvin J., Shannon R., Opie J., and Segel P. Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 111 (2002) 377-386
27. Zwolan T.A., Kileny P.R., Ashbaugh C., and Telian S.A. Patient performance with the cochlear corporation '20 + 2' implant: bipolar versus monopolar activation. Am. J. Otol. 17 (1996) 717-723