Current-Level Discrimination in the Context of Interleaved, Multichannel Stimulation in Cochlear Implants: Effects of Number of Stimulated Electrodes, Pulse Rate, and Electrode Separation

The ability of cochlear implantees to detect an increment in current level at one of many stimulated electrodes was investigated. Such changes in the electric profile provide information for cochlear implantees to discriminate numerous sounds, especially vowels. In Experiment 1, sensitivity to increases in current level at one stimulation site in the electric profile decreased as the number of stimulated electrodes increased. This outcome was most likely a result of decreased stimulus levels at individual electrodes that were required to retain a comfortable loudness when the number of active electrodes was increased. Experiment 2 investigated the effects of pulse rate and separation between stimulation sites when the levels in percent of dynamic range and number of stimulated electrodes were held constant. The effect of pulse rate and electrode separation varied among listeners. The sensitivity of 6 of 9 listeners was best at the pulse rate that they used clinically. This might have been the result of adaptation to the clinical pulse rate, or listeners might have chosen their inherently best pulse rate during the clinical fitting.

[1]  Colette M McKay,et al.  A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  R J Glynn,et al.  Survival of Spiral Ganglion Cells in Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss: Implications for Cochlear Implantation , 1989, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[3]  J. Krystal,et al.  Move over ANOVA: progress in analyzing repeated-measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry. , 2004, Archives of general psychiatry.

[4]  G S Donaldson,et al.  Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  G M Clark,et al.  Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interaction for sensations produced by electric stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Current-level discrimination using bipolar and monopolar electrode configurations in cochlear implants , 2005, Hearing Research.

[7]  F B Simmons,et al.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. , 1966, Archives of otolaryngology.

[8]  Robert K Shepherd,et al.  Long‐term sensorineural hearing loss induces functional changes in the rat auditory nerve , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[9]  R V Shannon,et al.  Forward masked excitation patterns in multielectrode electrical stimulation. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  J. Nadol,et al.  Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. , 1997, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[12]  K. Plant,et al.  Speech Perception as a Function of Electrical Stimulation Rate: Using the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant System , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[13]  R. Shannon Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. I. Basic psychophysics , 1983, Hearing Research.

[14]  William M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Better speech recognition with cochlear implants , 1991, Nature.

[15]  G M Clark,et al.  Forward masking patterns produced by intracochlear electrical stimulation of one and two electrode pairs in the human cochlea. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  M. Gribskov,et al.  [9] Profile analysis , 1990 .

[17]  Fan-Gang Zeng,et al.  Cochlear Implants: Auditory Prostheses and Electric Hearing , 2004, Springer Handbook of Auditory Research.

[18]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Psychophysics and Electrical Stimulation , 2004 .

[19]  D Sutton,et al.  Intensity discrimination with cochlear implants. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  M. Dorman,et al.  The effect of parametric variations of cochlear implant processors on speech understanding. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Nucleus® 24 Advanced Encoder Conversion Study: Performance versus Preference , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[22]  Marco Pelizzone,et al.  Forward masking in different cochlear implant systems. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Effects of Stimulation Rate with the Nucleus 24 ACE Speech Coding Strategy , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[24]  M. Gribskov,et al.  Profile Analysis , 1970 .

[25]  M. Pelizzone,et al.  Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects , 2003, Hearing Research.

[26]  Robert V. Shannon,et al.  Multichannel electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in man. II. Channel interaction , 1983, Hearing Research.