Temporal response properties of the auditory nerve: Data from human cochlear-implant recipients

Hearing Research

Volumn 285, Issue 1-2, 2012, Pages 46-57

  Hughes, Michelle L ^a   Castioni, Erin E ^a   Goehring, Jenny L ^a   Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L ^a  

^a BOYS TOWN NATIONAL RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MALE; NERVE CELL EXCITABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; SCHOOL CHILD; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STOCHASTIC MODEL; WAVEFORM;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84858295889     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: 18785891     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2012.01.010     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Abbas P.J., Brown C.J., Shallop J.K., Firszt J.B., Hughes M.L., Hong S.H., Staller S.J. Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear. 1999, 20(1):45-59.
2. Arneson A.R., Osen K.K. The cochlear nerve in the cat: topography, cochleotopy, and fiber spectrum. J. Comp. Neurol. 1978, 178(4):661-678.
3. Botros A., Psarros C. Neural response telemetry reconsidered. II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness. Ear Hear. 2010, 31:380-391.
4. Brill S.M., Gstöttner W., Helms J., von Ilberg C., Baumgartner W., Müller J., Kiefer J. Optimization of channel number and stimulation rate for the fast continuous interleaved sampling strategy in the COMBI 40+. Am. J. Otol. 1997, 18:S104-S106.
5. Finley C., Wilson B., van den Honert C., Lawson D. Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses 1997, Sixth Quarterly Progress Report, Nov. 1, 1996-Jan. 31, 1997, NIH, Project N01-DC-5-2103.
6. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Cruz R.J. Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol. Neurotol. 2005, 10:169-184.
7. Frijns J.H., de Snoo S.L., ten Kate J.H. Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear. Res. 1996, 95(1-2):33-48.
8. Fu Q.J. Temporal processing and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. NeuroReport 2002, 13(13):1635-1639.
9. Hay-McCutcheon M., Brown C.J., Abbas P.J. An analysis of the impact of auditory-nerve adaptation on behavioral measures of temporal integration in cochlear implant recipients. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2005, 118(4):2444-2457.
10. Hochmair I., Nopp P., Jolly C., Schmidt M., Schosser H., Garnham C., Anderson I. MED-EL cochlear implants: state of the art and a glimpse into the future. Trends Amplif. 2006, 10(4):201-220.
11. Holden L.K., Skinner M.W., Holden T.A., Demorest M.E. Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear. 2002, 23:463-476.
12. Holstad B.A., Sonneveldt V.G., Fears B.T., Davidson L.S., Aaron R.J., Richter M., Matusofsky M., Brenner C.A., Strube M.J., Skinner M.W. Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2009, 30(1):115-127.
13. Hughes M.L., Stille L.J. Psychophysical and physiological measures of electrical-field interaction in cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125(1):247-260.
14. Javel E., Shepherd R.K. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. III. Response initiation sites and temporal fine structure. Hear. Res. 2000, 140(1-2):45-76.
15. Kiefer J., von Ilberg C., Rupprecht V., Huber-Egener J., Baumgartner W., Gstoettner W., Forgasi K., Stephan K. Optimized speech understanding with the CIS-speech coding strategy in cochlear implants: the effect of variations in stimulus rate and number of channels. Cochlear Implants 2000, Thieme, New York. S.B. Waltzman, N.L. Cohen (Eds.).
16. Liberman M.C. Morphological differences among radial afferent fibers in the cat cochlea: an electron-microscopic study of serial sections. Hear. Res. 1980, 3(1):45-63.
17. Liberman M.C. The cochlear frequency map for the cat: labeling auditory-nerve fibers of known characteristic frequency. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1982, 72:1441-1449.
18. Litvak L.M., Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., Eddington D.K. Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114(4):2066-2078.
19. Loizou P.C., Poroy O., Dorman M. The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 108(2):790-802.
20. Luo X., Fu Q.J., Wei C.G., Cao K.L. Speech recognition and temporal amplitude modulation processing by Mandarin-speaking cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2008, 29(6):957-970.
21. Matsuoka A.J., Rubinstein J.T., Abbas P.J., Miller C.A. The effects of interpulse interval on stochastic properties of electrical stimulation: models and measurements. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2001, 48(4):416-424.
22. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Robinson B.K. Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2001, 2:216-232.
23. Miller C.A., Hu N., Zhang F., Robinson B.K., Abbas P.J. Changes across time in the temporal responses of auditory nerve fibers stimulated by electric pulse trains. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2008, 9:122-137.
24. Mino H., Rubinstein J.T. Effects of neural refractoriness on spatio-temporal variability in spike initiations with electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2006, 14(3):273-280.
25. Mino H., Rubinstein J.T., Miller C.A., Abbas P.J. Effects of electrode-to-fiber distance on temporal neural response with electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2004, 51(1):13-20.
26. Morsnowski A., Charasse B., Collet L., Killian M., Müller-Deile J. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Audiol. Neurotol. 2006, 11:389-402.
27. Muller M., Robertson D. Relationship between tone burst discharge pattern and spontaneous firing rate of auditory nerve fibres in the guinea pig. Hear. Res. 1991, 57(1):63-70.
28. Ng M., Niparko J.K., Nager G.T. Inner ear pathology in severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss. Cochlear Implants: Principles and Practices 2000, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. J.K. Niparko, K.I. Kirk, N.K. Mellon, A.M. Robbins, D.L. Tucci, B.S. Wilson (Eds.).
29. Potts L.G., Skinner M.W., Gotter B.D., Strube M.J., Brenner C.A. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear. 2007, 28(4):495-511.
30. Ranck J.B. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res. 1975, 98:417-440.
31. Rattay F. Analysis of models for external stimulation of axons. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1986, 33:974-977.
32. Rhode W.S., Smith P.H. Characteristics of tone-pip response patterns in relationship to spontaneous rate in cat auditory nerve fibers. Hear. Res. 1985, 18(2):159-168.
33. Rubinstein J.T., Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Abbas P.J. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 1999, 127(1-2):108-118.
34. Sagi E., Kaiser A.R., Meyer T.A., Svirsky M.A. The effect of temporal gap identification on speech perception by users of cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2009, 52(2):385-395.
35. Tykocinski M., Shepherd R.K., Clark G.M. Reduction in excitability of the auditory nerve following electrical stimulation at high stimulation rates. Hear. Res. 1995, 88:124-142.
36. Van Dijk B., Botros A.M., Battmer R.D., Begall K., Dillier N., Hay M., Lai W.K., Lenarz T., Laszig R., Morsnowski A., Muller-Deile J., Psarros C., Shallop J., Weber B., Wesarg T., Zarowski A. Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear. 2007, 28(4):558-570.
37. Vandali A.E., Whitford L.A., Plant K.L., Clark G.M. Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear. 2000, 21:608-624.
38. Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., Lawson D.T., Zerbi M. Temporal representations with cochlear implants. Am. J. Otol. 1997, 18(6):30-34.
39. Wilson B.S., Lawson D.T., Zerbi M., Finley C.C., Wolford R.D. New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. Am. J. Otol. 1995, 16(5):669-675.
40. Woo J., Miller C.A., Abbas P.J. The dependence of auditory nerve rate adaptation on electric stimulus parameters, electrode position, and fiber diameter: a computer model study. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2010, 11(2):283-296.
41. Zhang F., Miller C.A., Robinson B.K., Abbas P.J., Hu N. Changes across time in spike rate and spike amplitude of auditory nerve fibers stimulated by electric pulse trains. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2007, 8:356-372.