Recovery from forward masking in elderly cochlear implant users

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 355-363

  Lee, Edward R ^a   Friedland, David R ^a   Runge, Christina L ^a  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Cochlear implant; Forward masking

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONVALESCENCE; FEMALE; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AGING; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COHORT STUDIES; DEAFNESS; FEMALE; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84861066808     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e318248ede5     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Howden LM, Meyer JA. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2011.
2. Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, et al. Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study. Am J Epidemiol 1998;148:879-86. (Pubitemid 28484107)
3. Lethbridge-Cejku M, Schiller JS, Bernadel L. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2002. Vital Health Stat 2004;222:1-151.
4. Keithley EM, Feldman ML. Spiral ganglion cell counts in an agegraded series of rat cochleas. J Comp Neurol 1979;188:429-42.
5. Boettcher FA. Presbycusis and the auditory brainstem response. J Speech Lang Hear 2002;45:1249-61.
6. Nelson EG, Hinojosa R. PresbycusisVa human temporal bone study of individuals with downward sloping audiometric patterns of hearing loss and review of the literature. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1-12. (Pubitemid 44337829)
7. Ross B, Fujioka T, Tremblay KL, et al. Aging in binaural hearing begins in mid-life: evidence from cortical auditory-evoked responses to changes in interaural phase. J Neurosci 2007;27:11172-8. (Pubitemid 47621311)
8. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport 2002;13:1865-70. (Pubitemid 35398951)
9. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Effects of age and age-relaetd hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 2003;114:1332-43. (Pubitemid 36776832)
10. Tremblay KL, Billings C, Rohila N. Speech evoked cortical potentials: effects of age and stimulus presentation rate. J Am Acad Audiol 2004;15:226-37.
11. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Age effects on measures of auditory temporal sensitivity. J Speech Hear Res 1994;37:662-70. (Pubitemid 24181165)
12. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Age effects on discrimination of timing in auditory sequences. J Acoust Soc Am 2004;116: 1126-34. (Pubitemid 39063201)
13. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Age effects in discrimination of repeating sequence intervals. J Acoust Soc Am 2011;129:1490.
14. Harris KC, Dubno JR. What can MRI tell us about speech recognition and aging? Audiol Today 2010;22:50-2.
15. Schvartz KC, Chatterjee M, Gordon-Salant S. Recognition of spectrally degraded phonemes by younger, middle-aged, and older normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124:3972-88.
16. Snell KB. Age related changes in temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am 1997;101:2214-20. (Pubitemid 27163985)
17. Belin P, Zilbovicius M, Crozier S, et al. Lateralization of speech and auditory temporal processing. J Cogn Neurosci 1998;10:536-40. (Pubitemid 28377240)
18. Cabeza R. Hemispheric asymmetry reduction in old adults: The HAROLD model. Psychol Aging 2002;17:85-100. (Pubitemid 34241215)
19. Cabeza R, Daselaar SM, Dolcos F, et al. Task-independent and task-specific age effects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention, and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex 2004;14: 364-75. (Pubitemid 38506968)
20. Wong PCM, Jin JX, Gunasekera GM, et al. Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia 2009;47:693-703.
21. Wong PCM, Warrier CM, Penhune VB, et al. Volume of left heschl's gyrus and linguistic pitch learning. Cerebral Cortex 2008;18:828-36. (Pubitemid 351398343)
22. Harris KC, Dubno JR, Keren NI, et al. Speech recognition in younger and older adults: a dependency on low-level auditory cortex. J Neurosci 2009;29:6078-87.
23. Chatelin V, Kim EJ, Driscoll C, et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:298-301. (Pubitemid 39079812)
24. Labadie RF, Carrasco VN, Gilmer CH, et al. Cochlear implant performance in senior citizens. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;123:419-24.
25. Leung J, Wang NY, Yeagle J, et al. Predictive models for cochlear implantation in elderly candidates. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:1049-54. (Pubitemid 41815878)
26. Friedland DR, Runge-Samuelson C, Baig H, et al. Case-control analysis of cochlear implant performance in elderly patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:432-8.
27. Vermeire K, Brokx JP, Wuyts FL, et al. Quality-of-life benefit from cochlear implantation in the elderly. Otol Neurotol 2005;26: 188-95. (Pubitemid 40418651)
28. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:1385-91. (Pubitemid 20324408)
29. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus C124M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998;19:320-7.
30. Gantz BJ, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ. Intraoperative measures of electrically evoked auditory nerve compound action potential. Am J Otol 1994;15:137-44. (Pubitemid 24086457)
31. Kiefer J, Hohl S, Stürzebecher E, et al. Comparison of speech recognition with different speech coding strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and ACE) and their relationship to telemetric measures of compound action potentials in the nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiology 2001;40:32-42. (Pubitemid 32229208)
32. Nelson DA, Donaldson GS. Psychophysical recovery from singlepulse forward masking in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am2001;109: 2921-33.. (Pubitemid 32545136)
33. Stypulkowski PH, van den Honert C. Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. I. Compound action potential recordings. Hear Res 1984;14:205-23.
34. Chatterjee M. Temporal mechanisms underlying recovery from forward masking in multielectrode implant listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1999;105:1853-63.
35. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Borland J, et al. Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses. J Speech Hear Res 1996;39:453-67.
36. Nelson DA, Donaldson GS. Psychophysical recovery from pulsetrain forward masking in electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2002;112: 2932-47. (Pubitemid 37033869)
37. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 1971;49:467-77.
38. Zhou R, Abbas PJ, Assouline JG. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response in peripherally myelin-deficient mice. Hear Res 1995;88:98-106.
39. Shpak T, Berlin M, Luntz M. Objective measurements of auditory nerve recovery function in Nucleus CI 24 implantees in relation to subjective preference of stimulation rate. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124:679-83. (Pubitemid 39093350)
40. Tang Q, Benitez R, Zeng FG. Spatial channel interactions in cochlear implants. J Neural Eng 2011;8:046029.
41. Fulmer SL, Runge CL, Jensen JW, et al. Rate of neural recovery in implanted children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011;144:274-9.
42. Henry BA, McKay CM, McDermott HJ, et al. The relationship between speech perception and electrode discrimination in cochlear implantees. J Acoust Soc Am 2000;108:1269-80.