Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays

Hearing Research

Volumn 242, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 172-183

  Pfingst, Bryan E ^a   Burkholder Juhasz, Rose A ^a   Zwolan, Teresa A ^a   Xu, Li ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory prosthesis; Channel interaction; Cochlear implant; Detection threshold; Electrode discrimination; Modulation detection; Psychophysics; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NERVE FIBER; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BRAIN STEM; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; DEPTH PERCEPTION; ELECTRODE; HEARING AID; IMPLANT; LOUDNESS; MESENCEPHALON; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; TONOTOPY;

COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; HUMANS; MICROELECTRODES; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 48449099717     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.11.007     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Arnoldner C., Riss D., Baumgartner W.D., Kaider A., and Hamzavi J.S. Cochlear implant channel separation and its influence on speech perception - implications for a new electrode design. Audiol. NeuroOtol. 12 (2007) 313-324
2. Baer T., and Moore B.C.J. Effects of spectral smearing on the intelligibility of sentences in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 94 (1993) 1229-1241
3. Baskent D., and Shannon R.V. Frequency-place compression and expansion in cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 116 (2004) 3130-3140
4. Bierer J.A. Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 (2007) 1642-1653
5. Bierer J.A., and Middlebrooks J.C. Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: dependence on electrode configuration. J. Neurophysiol. 87 (2002) 478-492
6. Burkholder-Juhasz, R.A., Pfingst, B.E., Thompson, C.S., 2007. Effects of electrode configuration on modulation detection and forward masking. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. #A36, p. 103.
7. Burkholder-Juhasz, R.A., Pfingst, B.E., in press. Across-site patterns of gap and modulation detection thresholds in cochlear implant users. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. Abst.
8. Cazals Y., Pelizzone M., Saudan O., and Boex C. Low-pass filtering in amplitude modulation detection associated with vowel and consonant identification in subjects with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 96 (1994) 2048-2054
9. Chatterjee M., and Fu Q.-J. Within-channel gap detection using dissimilar markers in cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103 (1998) 2515-2519
10. Colletti V., and Shannon R.V. Open set speech perception with auditory brainstem implant?. Laryngoscope 115 (2005) 1974-1978
11. Colombo J., and Parkins C.W. A model of electrical excitation of the mammalian auditory-nerve neuron. Hear. Res. 31 (1987) 287-311
12. Donaldson G.S., and Nelson D.A. Place-pitch sensitivity and its relation to consonant recognition by cochlear implant listeners using the MPEAK and SPEAK speech processing strategies. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107 (2000) 1645-1658
13. Faulkner, K.F., Tremblay, K.L., Bierer, J.A., 2007. Psychophysical tuning curves and electrically-evoked auditory brainstem responses with the partial tripolar electrode configuration. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. #A27, p. 94.
14. Fayad J.N., and Linthicum Jr. F.H. Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope 116 (2006) 1310-1320
15. Finley, C.C., Holden, L.K., Holden, T.A., Whiting, B.R., Skinner, M.W., 2007. Modifications in individual subject fitting based on variability in electrode placement and place pitch perception. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. #B19, p. 125.
16. Fishman K.E., Shannon R.V., and Slattery W.H. Speech recognition as a function of the number of electrodes used in the SPEAK cochlear implant speech processor. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 40 (1997) 1201-1215
17. Franck K.H., and Norton S.J. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's CI24M device. Ear Hear. 22 (2001) 289-299
18. Franck K.H., Xu L., and Pfingst B.E. Effects of stimulus level on speech perception with cochlear prostheses. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 4 (2002) 49-59
19. 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 (2001) 1150-1163
20. Fu Q.-J. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Neuroreport 13 (2002) 1635-1639
21. Fu Q.-J., and Shannon R.V. Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105 (1999) 1889-1900
22. Fu Q.-J., Shannon R.V., and Galvin III J.J. Perceptual learning following changes in the frequency-to-electrode assignment with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 112 (2002) 1664-1674
23. Galvin J.J.III., and Fu Q.-J. Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 6 (2005) 269-279
24. Gani M., Valentini G., Sigrist A., Kos M.I., and Boex C. Implications of deep electrode insertion on cochlear implant fitting. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 8 (2007) 69-83
25. Gstoettner W., Kiefer J., Baumgartner W.D., Pok S., Peters S., and Adunka O. Hearing preservation in cochlear implantation for electric acoustic stimulation. Acta Otolaryngol. 124 (2004) 348-352
26. Hanekom J.J., and Shannon R.V. Gap detection as a measure of electrode interaction in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 (1998) 2372-2384
27. Hartmann R., and Klinke R. Response characteristics of nerve fibers to patterned electrical stimulation. In: Miller J.M., and Spelman F.A. (Eds). Cochlear Implants (1990), Springer-Verlag, New York 135-160
28. Hinojosa R., and Lindsay J.R. Profound deafness. Associated sensory and neural degeneration. Arch. Otolaryngol. 106 (1980) 193-209
29. Hu N., Abbas P., Miller C., Robinson B., Nourski K., Jeng F., Abkes B., and Nichols J. Auditory response to intracochlear electric stimuli following furosemide treatment. Hear. Res. 185 (2003) 77-89
30. Kwon B.J., and van den Honert C. Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119 (2006) 2994-3002
31. Lehnhardt E., Gnadeberg D., Battmer R.D., and von Wallenberg E. Experience with the cochlear miniature speech processor in adults and children together with a comparison of unipolar and bipolar modes. ORL 54 (1992) 308-313
32. Le Prell C.G., Kawamoto K., Raphael Y., and Dolan D.F. Electromotile hearing: Acoustic tones mask psychophysical response to high-frequency electrical stimulation of intact guinea pig cochleae. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120 (2006) 3889-3900
33. Lim H.H., and Anderson D.J. Spatially distinct functional output regions within the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus: implications for an auditory midbrain implant. J. Neurosci. 27 (2007) 8733-8743
34. Lim H.H., Lenarz T., Anderson D.J., and Lenarz M. The auditory midbrain implant: Effects of electrode location. Hear. Res. 242 (2008) 74-85
35. McCreery D.B. Cochlear nucleus auditory prostheses. Hear. Res. 242 (2008) 64-73
36. McKay C.M., O'Brien A., and James C.J. Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 136 (1999) 159-164
37. Middlebrooks J.C., and Snyder R.L. Intraneural stimulation for auditory prosthesis: Modiolar trunk and intracranial stimulation sites. Hear. Res. 242 (2008) 52-63
38. Middlebrooks J.C., and Snyder R.L. Auditory prosthesis with a penetrating nerve array. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 8 (2007) 258-279
39. Morris D.J., and Pfingst B.E. Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 1 (2000) 211-223
40. Nadol Jr. J.B. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 117 (1997) 220-228
41. Nelson D.A., Schmitz J.L., Donaldson G.S., Viemeister N.F., and Javel E. Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 100 (1996) 2393-2414
42. Otto S.R., Brackmann D.E., Hitselberger W.E., Shannon R.V., and Kuchta J. Multichannel auditory brainstem implant: update on performance in 61 patients. J. Neurosurg. 96 (2002) 1063-1071
43. Pfingst B.E., and Rai D.T. Effects of level on nonspectral frequency difference limens for electrical and acoustic stimuli. Hear. Res. 50 (1990) 43-56
44. Pfingst B.E., and Xu L. Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 5 (2004) 11-24
45. Pfingst B.E., and Xu L. Psychophysical metrics and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Audiol. NeuroOtol. 10 (2005) 331-341
46. Pfingst B.E., Burnett P.A., and Sutton D. Intensity discrimination with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 73 (1983) 1283-1292
47. Pfingst B.E., Holloway L.A., Poopat N., Subramanya A.R., Warren M.F., and Zwolan T.A. Effects of stimulus level on nonspectral frequency discrimination by human subjects. Hear. Res. 78 (1994) 197-209
48. 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
49. Pfingst B.E., Holloway L.A., Zwolan T.A., and Collins L.M. Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 134 (1999) 105-115
50. Pfingst B.E., Xu L., and Thompson C.S. Across-site threshold variation in cochlear implants: relation to speech recognition. Audiol. NeuroOtol. 9 (2004) 341-352
51. Pfingst B.E., Burkholder R.A., Thompson C.S., and Xu L. Modulation detection thresholds for cochlear implants: Dependence on stimulation site and stimulus level. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120 (2006) 3342
52. Pfingst, B.E., Burkholder-Juhasz, R.A., Middlebrooks, J.C., 2007a. Cortical and psychophysical detection of temporal envelope modulation. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. #A31, p. 98.
53. Pfingst B.E., Xu L., and Thompson C.S. Effects of carrier pulse rate and stimulation site on modulation detection by subjects with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 (2007) 2236-2246
54. Rattay F., Leao R.N., and Felix H. A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. II. Influence of the three-dimensional cochlear structure on neural excitability. Hear. Res. 153 (2001) 64-79
55. Rattay F., Lutter P., and Felix H. A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. I. Contribution of neural substructures to the generation and propagation of spikes. Hear. Res. 153 (2001) 43-63
56. Richardson L.M., Busby P.A., and Clark G.M. Modulation detection interference in cochlear implant subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 104 (1998) 442-452
57. Rodenhiser K.L., and Spelman F.A. A method for determining the driving currents for focused stimulation in the cochlea. IEEE. Trans. Biomed. Eng. 42 (1995) 337-342
58. Saunders E., Cohen L., Aschendorff A., Shapiro W., Knight M., Stecker M., Richter B., Waltzman S., Tykocinski M., Roland T., Laszig R., and Cowan R. Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear. 23 (2002) 28S-40S
59. Shannon R.V. Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics. Hear. Res. 11 (1983) 157-189
60. Shannon R.V. Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85 (1989) 2587-2592
61. Shannon R.V. Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91 (1992) 2156-2164
62. Shannon, R.V., 1993. Reply to: "Comment on 'Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants' " [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 1649-1650 (1993)]. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93, 1651-1652.
63. Shannon R.V., Galvin III J.J., and Baskent D. Holes in hearing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 3 (2002) 185-199
64. Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A., Demorest M.E., and Fourakis M.S. Speech recognition at simulated soft, conversational, and raised-to-loud vocal efforts by adults with cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101 (1997) 3766-3782
65. Skinner M.W., Holden L.K., Holden T.A., and Demorest M.E. Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 42 (1999) 814-828
66. Snyder R.L., Rebscher S.J., Cao K., Leake P.A., and Kelly K. Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation in the neonatally deafened cat. I. Expansion of central representation. Hear. Res. 50 (1990) 7-33
67. Somdas M.A., Li P.M., Whiten D.M., Eddington D.K., and Nadol Jr. J.B. Quantitative evaluation of new bone and fibrous tissue in the cochlea following cochlear implantation in the human. Audiol. NeuroOtol. 12 (2007) 277-284
68. Spelman F.A., Pfingst B.E., Clopton B.M., Jolly C.N., and Rodenhiser K.L. Effects of electrical current configuration on potential fields in the electrically stimulated cochlea: field models and measurements. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. Suppl. 166 (1995) 131-136
69. Stevens S.S. On hearing by electrical stimulation. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 10 (1937) 183-187
70. Van Compernolle, D., 1985. Speech processing strategies for a multichannel cochlear prosthesis. Stanford Electric Labs, Technical Report No. G906-7.
71. van den Honert, C., Carlyon, R.P., Long, C.J., Smith, Z.M., Shelton, C., Kelsall, D.C., 2007. Perceptual evidence of spatially-restricted excitation with focused stimulation. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. # 7A, p. 58.
72. van den Honert C., and Kelsall D.C. Focused intracochlear electric stimulation with phased array channels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 (2007) 3703-3716
73. van den Honert C., and Stypulkowski P.H. Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings. Hear. Res. 14 (1984) 225-243
74. van Hoesel R.J. Sensitivity to binaural timing in bilateral cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 121 (2007) 2192-2206
75. Whiten, D.M., Eddington, D.K. 2007. Validating patient-specific electro-anatomical models: Empirically-measured and model-predicted evoked potentials and EFI data from the same individual. In: Abst. 2007 Conf. Implantable Aud. Proth. Abst. #3G, p. 37.
76. Xu L., and Zheng Y. Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 122 (2007) 1758-1764
77. 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
78. Zwolan T.A., Collins L.M., and Wakefield G.H. Electrode discrimination and speech recognition in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 102 (1997) 3673-3685