Effects of pulse width, pulse rate and paired electrode stimulation on psychophysical measures of dynamic range and speech recognition in cochlear implants

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 489-496

  Bonnet, Raymond M ^a   Boermans, Peter Paul B M ^a   Avenarius, Otto F ^a   Briaire, Jeroen J ^a   Frijns, Johan H M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION TESTS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84862883949     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31824c761a     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bonnet, R. M., Frijns, J. H., Peeters, S., et al. (2004). Speech recognition with a cochlear implant using triphasic charge-balanced pulses. Acta Otolaryngol, 124, 371-375.
2. Briaire, J. J., & Frijns, J. H. M. (2003). New Insights in the Fitting Strategy for Adults and Children. Asilomar, CA: Abstract book of the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, 188.
3. Buechner, A., Frohne-Buechner, C., Stoever, T., et al. (2005). Comparison of a paired or sequential stimulation paradigm with advanced bionics' high-resolution mode. Otol Neurotol, 26, 941-947.
4. Drennan, W. R., & Pfingst, B. E. (2006). Current-level discrimination in the context of interleaved, multichannel stimulation in cochlear implants: effects of number of stimulated electrodes, pulse rate, and electrode separation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 7, 308-316.
5. Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Cruz, R. J. (2005). Effects of stimulation rate on speech recognition with cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol, 10, 169-184.
6. Frijns, J. H., Klop, W. M., Bonnet, R. M., et al. (2003). Optimizing the number of electrodes with high-rate stimulation of the clarion CII cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol, 123, 138-142.
7. Frijns, J. H., Briaire, J. J., de Laat, J. A., et al. (2002). Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear, 23, 184-197.
8. Frijns, J. H., Briaire, J. J., Grote, J. J. (2001). The importance of human cochlear anatomy for the results of modiolus-hugging multichannel cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol, 22, 340-349.
9. Galvin, J. J. 3rd, & Fu, Q. J. (2005). Effects of stimulation rate, mode and level on modulation detection by cochlear implant users. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 6, 269-279.
10. Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., et al. (2002). Effects of stimulation rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE speech coding strategy. Ear Hear, 23, 463-476.
11. Kreft, H. A., Donaldson, G. S., Nelson, D. A. (2004). Effects of pulse rate on threshold and dynamic range in Clarion cochlear-implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 115(5 Pt 1), 1885-1888.
12. Loizou, P. C., Stickney, G., Mishra, L., et al. (2003). Comparison of speech processing strategies used in the Clarion implant processor. Ear Hear, 24, 12-19.
13. Macherey, O., van Wieringen, A., Carlyon, R. P., et al. (2006). Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 7, 253-266.
14. McKay, C. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1999). The perceptual effects of current pulse duration in electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, 998-1009.
15. Middlebrooks, J. C. (2004). Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 452-468.
16. Moon, A. K., Zwolan, T. A., Pfingst, B. E. (1993). Effects of phase duration on detection of electrical stimulation of the human cochlea. Hear Res, 67, 166-178.
17. Rubinstein, J. T., Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., et al. (1999). Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear Res, 127, 108-118.
18. Shannon, R. V. (1985). Threshold and loudness functions for pulsatile stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res, 18, 135-143.
19. Shannon, R. V. (1989). A model of threshold for pulsatile electrical stimulation of cochlear implants. Hear Res, 40, 197-204.
20. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., et al. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients' thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels. J Am Acad Audiol, 11, 203-213.
21. Smoorenburg, G. F. (1992). Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram. J Acoust Soc Am, 91, 421-437.
22. UK Cochlear Implant Study Group. (2004). Criteria of candidacy for unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deafened adults I: theory and measures of effectiveness. Ear Hear, 25, 310-335.
23. Vandali, A. E., Whitford, L. A., Plant, K. L., et al. (2000). Speech perception as a function of electrical stimulation rate: using the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Ear Hear, 21, 608-624.
24. van der Beek, F. B., Boermans, P. P., Verbist, B. M., et al. (2005). Clinical evaluation of the Clarion CII HiFocus 1 with and without positioner. Ear Hear, 26, 577-592.
25. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., et al. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.
26. Wilson, B. S., Lawson, D. T., Zerbi, M., et al. (1995). New processing strategies in cochlear implantation. Am J Otol, 16, 669-675.
27. Zeng, F. G., Galvin, J. J. 3rd, Zhang, C. (1998). Encoding loudness by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Neuroreport, 9, 1845-1848.