EFFECTS OF ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION ON THRESHOLD FUNCTIONS FOR ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION OF THE COCHLEA

被引:25
作者
PFINGST, BE
MORRIS, DJ
MILLER, AL
机构
[1] Kresge Hearing Research Institute, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0506
关键词
AUDITORY PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR IMPLANT; ELECTRICAL STIMULATION; ELECTRODE CONFIGURATION; NONHUMAN PRIMATES; PSYCHOPHYSICS;
D O I
10.1016/0378-5955(95)00037-5
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Psychophysical detection threshold vs frequency functions for sinusoidal electrical stimulation of the deafened cochlea were measured in 18 nonhuman primate subjects. Functions for monopolar or widely-spaced (> 2.5 mm) bipolar stimulation were lower and usually had steeper slopes than those for more narrowly-spaced (< 2.0 mm) bipolar stimulation. In 56% of the cases the difference between thresholds for narrowly-spaced bipolar stimulation and more widely-spaced bipolar or monopolar stimulation was greater for low frequency stimuli (63 or 100 Hz) than for high frequency stimuli (800 or 1,000 Hz) by 5 dB or more. Two cases were compared in more detail using pulsatile stimuli. For sinusoidal stimuli, one of these cases showed a moderate frequency dependent effect of electrode configuration and the other did not. The case with the frequency dependent effect of electrode configuration for sinusoids also showed a phase-duration dependent effect of electrode configuration for detection of single biphasic pulses: strength-duration curves (detection threshold in decibels vs pulse duration in ms/phase) were steeper for monopolar stimulation than for narrowly-spaced (0.7 mm) bipolar stimulation. This effect was not seen in the case that showed little or no frequency dependence in the effect of electrode configuration for sinusoidal stimuli. Slopes of threshold vs pulse rate functions where pulse duration was held constant at 2 ms/phase were not affected by electrode configuration in either subject.
引用
收藏
页码:76 / 84
页数:9
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   DIFFERENTIAL ELECTRICAL EXCITATION OF THE AUDITORY-NERVE [J].
BLACK, RC ;
CLARK, GM .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1980, 67 (03) :868-874
[2]   COCHLEOTOPIC SELECTIVITY OF A MULTICHANNEL SCALA TYMPANI ELECTRODE ARRAY USING THE 2-DEOXYGLUCOSE TECHNIQUE [J].
BROWN, M ;
SHEPHERD, RK ;
WEBSTER, WR ;
MARTIN, RL ;
CLARK, GM .
HEARING RESEARCH, 1992, 59 (02) :224-240
[3]   DECISION RULES IN DETECTION OF SIMPLE AND COMPLEX TONES [J].
BUUS, S ;
SCHORER, E ;
FLORENTINE, M ;
ZWICKER, E .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1986, 80 (06) :1646-1657
[4]   A MODEL OF ELECTRICAL EXCITATION OF THE MAMMALIAN AUDITORY-NERVE NEURON [J].
COLOMBO, J ;
PARKINS, CW .
HEARING RESEARCH, 1987, 31 (03) :287-311
[5]  
GASSLER G, 1954, ACUSTICA, V4, P408
[6]  
Hartmann R., 1990, COCHLEAR IMPLANTS MO, P135, DOI [10.1007/978-1-4612-3256-8_10, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4612-3256-8_10]
[7]  
MERZENICH MM, 1977, FUNCTIONAL ELECTRICA, P321
[8]   EFFECTS OF PHASE DURATION ON DETECTION OF ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION OF THE HUMAN COCHLEA [J].
MOON, AK ;
ZWOLAN, TA ;
PFINGST, BE .
HEARING RESEARCH, 1993, 67 (1-2) :166-178
[9]   TEMPORAL RESPONSE PATTERNS OF AUDITORY-NERVE FIBERS TO ELECTRICAL-STIMULATION IN DEAFENED SQUIRREL-MONKEYS [J].
PARKINS, CW .
HEARING RESEARCH, 1989, 41 (2-3) :137-168
[10]  
Pfingst B., 1985, COCHLEAR IMPLANTS, P305