Effects of High-Rate Pulse Trains on Electrode Discrimination in Cochlear Implant Users

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 76-86

  Runge Samuelson, Christina L ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

channel independence; cochlear implant; electrode discrimination; high rate pulse trains; stochastic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PERFORMANCE; PULSE RATE; SIGNAL PROCESSING; STIMULUS;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SIGNAL PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 65649148257     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713809336739     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Behnam, S.E., & Zeng, F.G. (2003). Noise improves suprathreshold discrimination in cochlear-implant listeners. Hearing Research, 186, 91-93.
2. Carroll, J., & Zeng, F.G. (2007). Fundamental frequency discrimination and speech perception in noise in cochlear implant simulations. Hearing Research, 231, 42-53.
3. Chatterjee, M., & Oba, S.I. (2005). Noise improves modulation detection by cochlear implant listeners at moderate carrier levels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 993-1002.
4. Chatterjee, M., & Robert, M.E. (2001). Noise enhances modulation sensitivity in cochlear implant listeners: stochastic resonance in a prosthetic sensory system? Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 2, 159-171.
5. Collins, L.M., Zwolan, T.A., & Wakefield, G.H. (1997). Comparison of electrode discrimination, pitch ranking, and pitch scaling data in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 440-455.
6. Dawson, P.W., McKay, C.M., Busby, P.A., Grayden, D.B., & Clark, G.M. (2000). Electrode discrimination and speech perception in young children using cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 21, 597-607.
7. Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Fitzke, J., & Tu, Z. (1998). The recognition of sentences in noise by normal-hearing listeners using simulations of cochlear-implant signal processors with 6-20 channels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 104, 3583-3585.
8. Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Kemp, L.L., & Kirk, K.I. (2000). Word recognition by children listening to speech processed into a small number of channels: Data from normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 21, 590-596.
9. Dorman, M.F., Loizou, P.C., Spahr, A.J., & Maloff, E. (2002). Factors that allow a high level of speech understanding by patients fit with cochlear implants. American Journal of Audiology, 11, 119-123.
10. Eisenberg, L.S., Shannon, R.V., Martinez, A.S., Wygonski, J., & Boothroyd, A. (2000). Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107(5,Pt.1), 2704-2710.
11. Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V., Baskent, D., & Wang, X. (2001). Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: Comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1150-1163.
12. Fu, Q.J., Chinchilla, S., & Galvin, J.J. (2004). The role of spectral and temporal cues in voice gender discrimination by normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 5, 253-260.
13. Fu, Q.J., & Nogaki, G. (2005). Noise susceptibility of cochlear implant users: The role of spectral resolution and smearing. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 6, 19-27.
14. Hartmann, R., Topp, G., & Klinke, R. (1984). Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hearing Research, 13, 47-62.
15. Henry, B.A., McKay, C.M., McDermott, H.J., & Clark, G.M. (2000). The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108(3,Pt.1), 1269-1280.
16. Hong, R.S., & Rubinstein, J.T. (2003). High-rate conditioning pulse trains in cochlear implants: Dynamic range measures with sinusoidal stimuli. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(6,Pt.1), 3327-3342.
17. Hong, R.S., Rubinstein, J.T., Wehner, D., & Horn, D. (2003). Dynamic range enhancement for cochlear implants. Otology & Neurotology, 24, 590-595.
18. Kiang, N.Y., & Moxon, E.C. (1972). Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, 81, 714-730.
19. Laneau, J., & Wouters, J. (2004). Multichannel place pitch sensitivity in cochlear implant recipients. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 5, 285-294.
20. Litvak, L., Delgutte, B., & Eddington, D. (2001). Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: Modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 368-379.
21. Litvak, L., Delgutte, B., & Eddington, D. (2003a). Improved neural representation of vowels in electric stimulation using desynchronizing pulse trains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(4,Pt.1), 2099-2111.
22. Litvak, L.M., Delgutte, B., & Eddington, D.K. (2003b). Improved temporal coding of sinusoids in electric stimulation of the auditory nerve using desynchronizing pulse trains. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(4,Pt.1), 2079-2098.
23. Litvak, L.M., Smith, Z.M., Delgutte, B., & Eddington, D.K. (2003). Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114(4,Pt.1), 2066-2078.
24. Matsuoka, A.J., Abbas, P.J., Rubinstein, J.T., & Miller, C.A. (2000). The neuronal response to electrical constant-amplitude pulse train stimulation: Additive Gaussian noise. Hearing Research, 149, 129-137.
25. Matsuoka, A.J., Rubinstein, J.T., Abbas, P.J., & Miller, C.A. (2001). The effects of interpulse interval on stochastic properties of electrical stimulation: Models and measurements. IEEE Transactions on Bio-medical Engineering, 48, 416-424.
26. McKay, C.M., O'Brien, A., & James, C.J. (1999). Effect of current level on electrode discrimination in electrical stimulation. Hearing Research, 136, 159-164.
27. Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., & Robinson, B.K. (2001). Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 2, 216-232.
28. Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Robinson, B.K., Rubinstein, J.T., & Matsuoka, A.J. (1999). Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: Responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hearing Research, 130, 197-218.
29. Miller, C.A., Hu, N., Zhang, F., Robinson, B.K., & Abbas, P.J. (2008). Changes across time in the temporal responses of auditory nerve fibers stimulated by electric pulse trains. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 9, 122-137.
30. Morse, R.P., & Evans, E.F. (1996). Enhancement of vowel coding for cochlear implants by addition of noise. Nature Medicine, 2, 928-932.
31. Morse, R.P., & Evans, E.F. (1999a). Additive noise can enhance temporal coding in a computational model of analogue cochlear implant stimulation. Hearing Research, 133, 107-119.
32. Morse, R.P., & Evans, E.F. (1999b). Preferential and non-preferential transmission of formant information by an analogue cochlear implant using noise: The role of the nerve threshold. Hearing Research, 133, 120-132.
33. Morse, R.P., Morse, P.F., Nunn, T.B., Archer, K.A., & Boyle, P. (2007). The effect of Gaussian noise on the threshold, dynamic range, and loudness of analogue cochlear implant stimuli. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 8, 42-53.
34. Pfingst, B.E., Burkholder-Juhasz, R.A., Zwolan, T.A., & Xu, L. (2008). Psychophysical assessment of stimulation sites in auditory prosthesis electrode arrays. Hearing Research, 242, 172-183.
35. Pfingst, B.E., Holloway, L.A., Zwolan, T.A., & Collins, L.M. (1999). Effects of stimulus level on electrode-place discrimination in human subjects with cochlear implants. Hearing Research, 134, 105-115.
36. Rubinstein, J.T., & Hong, R. (2003). Signal coding in cochlear implants: Exploiting stochastic effects of electrical stimulation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology Supplement, 191, 14-19.
37. Rubinstein, J.T., Wilson, B.S., Finley, C.C., & Abbas, P.J. (1999). Pseudospontaneous activity: Stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hearing Research, 127, 108-118.
38. Runge-Samuelson, C.L. (2002). Response of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation: Effects of high-rate pulse trains. Iowa City : University of Iowa.
39. Runge-Samuelson, C.L., Abbas, P.J., Rubinstein, J.T., Miller, C.A., & Robinson, B.K. (2004). Response of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation: Effects of high-rate pulse trains. Hearing Research, 194, 1-13.
40. Shannon, R.V., Fu, Q.J., & Galvin, J., III. (2004). The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Oto-laryngologica Supplementum, 552, 50-54.
41. Shepherd, R.K., & Javel, E. (1997). Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status. Hearing Research, 108, 112-144.
42. Smith, Z.M., Delgutte, B., & Oxenham, A.J. (2002). Chimaeric sounds reveal dichotomies in auditory perception. Nature, 416, 87-90.
43. Throckmorton, C.S., & Collins, L.M. (1999). Investigation of the effects of temporal and spatial interactions on speech-recognition skills in cochlear-implant subjects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105(2,Pt.1), 861-873.
44. van den Honert, C., & Stypulkowski, P.H. (1987). Temporal response patterns of single auditory nerve fibers elicited by periodic electrical stimuli. Hearing Research, 29, 207-222.
45. Xu, L., & Zheng, Y. (2007). Spectral and temporal cues for phoneme recognition in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122, 1758.
46. Zeng, F.G., Fu, Q.J., & Morse, R. (2000). Human hearing enhanced by noise. Brain Research, 869, 251-255.