Use of "phantom Electrode" technique to extend the range of pitches available through a cochlear implant

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 693-701

  Saoji, Aniket A ^a   Litvak, Leonid M ^a  

^a Advanced Bionics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; HEARING; HUMAN; IMPEDANCE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; SPIRAL GANGLION;

ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MIDDLE AGED; PITCH DISCRIMINATION; SPIRAL GANGLION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956426669     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e1d15e     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Abbas, P. J., Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., et al. (2004). Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 203-213.
2. Arnoldner, C., Riss, D., Kaider, A., et al. (2008). The intensity-pitch relation revisited: Monopolar versus bipolar cochlear stimulation. Laryngoscope, 118, 1630-1636.
3. Baskent, D., & Shannon, R. V. (2005). Interactions between cochlear implant electrode insertion depth and frequency-place mapping. J Acoust Soc Am, 117, 1405-1416.
4. Boex, C., Baud, L., Cosendai, G., et al. (2006). Acoustic to electric pitch comparisons in cochlear implant subjects with residual hearing. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 7, 110-124.
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. J Acoust Soc Am, 101, 440-455.
6. Dorman, M. F., & Ketten, D. (2003). Adaptation by a cochlear-implant patient to upward shifts in the frequency representation of speech. Ear Hear, 24, 457-460.
7. Dorman, M. F., Loizou, P. C., Rainey, D. (1997). Simulating the effect of cochlear-implant electrode insertion depth on speech understanding. J Acoust Soc Am, 102, 2993-2996.
8. Dorman, M. F., Spahr, A. J., Loizou, P. C., et al. (2005). Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear, 26, 371-380.
9. Fu, Q. J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999a). Effects of electrode configuration and frequency allocation on vowel recognition with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant. Ear Hear, 20, 332-344.
10. Fu, Q. J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999b). Recognition of spectrally degraded and frequency-shifted vowels in acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 105, 1889-1900.
11. Gantz, B. J., & Turner, C. (2004). Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Otolaryngol, 124, 344-347. (Pubitemid 38797581)
12. Gantz, B. J., Turner, C., Gfeller, K. (2004). Expanding cochlear implant technology: Combined electrical and acoustical speech processing. Cochlear Implants Int, 5(Suppl), 8-14.
13. Hacker, M. J., & Ratcliff, R. (1979). A revised table of d̈ for M-alternative forced choice. Percept Psychophys, 26, 168-170.
14. Jolly, C. N., Spelman, F. A., Clopton, B. M. (1996). Quadrupolar stimulation for Cochlear prostheses: Modeling and experimental data. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng, 43, 857-865.
15. Landsberger, D. M., & Srinivasan, A. G. (2009). Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res, 254, 34-41.
16. Litvak, L. M., Spahr, A. J., Emadi, G. (2007). Loudness growth observed under partially tripolar stimulation: Model and data from cochlear implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 122, 967-981.
17. Moore, B. C. (1978). Psychophysical tuning curves measured in simultaneous and forward masking. J Acoust Soc Am, 63, 524-532.
18. Nelson, D. A., Donaldson, G. S., Kreft, H. (2008). Forward-masked spatial tuning curves in cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 123, 1522-1543.
19. Nelson, D. A., Van Tasell, D. J., Schroder, A. C., et al. (1995). Electrode ranking of "place pitch" and speech recognition in electrical hearing. J Acoust Soc Am, 98, 1987-1999.
20. Oxenham, A. J., Bernstein, J. G., Penagos, H. (2004). Correct tonotopic representation is necessary for complex pitch perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 101, 1421-1425.
21. Reiss, L. A., Turner, C. W., Erenberg, S. R., et al. (2007). Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 8, 241-257.
22. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A. (1995). Effect of frequency boundary assignment on speech recognition with the speak speechcoding strategy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 166, 307-311.
23. Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., Whiting, B. R. (2007). In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 197, 2-24.
24. Snyder, R. L., Middlebrooks, J. C., Bonham, B. H. (2008). Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity. Hear Res, 235, 23-38.
25. Townsend, B., Cotter, N., Van Compernolle, D., et al. (1987). Pitch perception by cochlear implant patients. J Acoust Soc Am, 82, 106-115.
26. Turner, C. W., Reiss, L. A., Gantz, B. J. (2008). Combined acoustic and electric hearing: Preserving residual acoustic hearing. Hear Res, 242, 164-171.
27. Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001a). The psychometric function: Part I-Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys, 63, 1293-1313.
28. Wichmann, F. A., & Hill, N. J. (2001b). The psychometric function: Part II-Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling. Percept Psychophys, 63, 1314-1329.