Graeme Clark Collection
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemElectrophysiologic effects following acute intracochlear direct current stimulation of the guinea pig cochlea( 1995)Auditory brain stem responses to both acoustic (auditory brain stem response [ABR]) and electrical (electrically evoked auditory brain stem response [EABR]) stimuli, as well as the frequency-specific compound action potential (CAP), were recorded before and periodically following continuous intracochlear DC stimulation (2, 7, and 12 µA) for 2 hours in normal-hearing guinea pigs, by means of a banded intracochlear electrode array. Click-evoked ABR, frequency-specific CAP, and the EABR input-output function remained generally unchanged following stimulation at 2 µA DC. However, following stimulation at 7and 12 µA, a significant decrement of the amplitude of the click-evoked ABR, frequency-specific CAP, and electrophonic component of the EABR was observed, while there was an increase in the amplitude of the EABR, associated with direct electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.
-
ItemPitch matching of electric and acoustic stimuli( 1995)In the electric coding of speech for multiple-electrode cochlear implants, acoustic frequency ranges are mapped onto electrodes. The question arises as to whether the pitches of the electrically evoked hearing sensations are similar to those evoked by the corresponding acoustic stimuli in normal-hearing listeners. Obviously, the sensations are similar enough for many postlingually deaf implant users to understand speech with a minimum of retraining, but it is unlikely that the electric signals sound identical to the acoustic ones. There will also be differences between implant users arising from the variable insertion depth of the electrode array, the number of electrodes in use, and the frequency-to-electrode mapping. The most direct method of determining pitch is to ask implant users to compare electric and acoustic stimuli, but studies of this sort have been hampered by the fact that very few implant users have usable hearing for acoustic signals. In 1978, Eddington et al 1 reported pitch-matching results for one unilaterally deaf volunteer. They concluded that pitch matching was "roughly consistent with electrode position and tonotopic maps of the cochlea derived from basilar membrane motion and hearing loss measurements." Several other studies 2-6 have investigated the relative pitch of electric signals using identification, scaling, and discrimination paradigms. These studies have established that electrode placement, electrode configuration, and rate of stimulation all affect the perceived pitch, and that the pitch increases tonotopically from apical to basal electrode positions. They have not determined the pitch of electric stimuli in an absolute fashion that can be compared with acoustic stimuli, however. A knowledge of the absolute pitch of electric stimuli for individuals, or as a function of position in the cochlea, would be very useful in optimizing the frequency mapping for cochlear implants. The present study directly compared the pitch of acoustic pure tones in one ear with electric signals in the other ear of implant users with some residual hearing in the nonimplanted ear. The main questions addressed were whether the pulse rate of a matched electric stimulus would be equal to the frequency of the acoustic tone, and whether the electrode used in the matched stimulus would correspond in position to the place of maximum basilar membrane motion produced by the acoustic tone in a normal cochlea.
-
ItemPitch matching of amplitude-modulated current pulse trains by cochlear implantees: the effect of modulation depth( 1995)Abstract not available due to copyright.
-
ItemPhysiological and histopathological response of the cochlea to chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates [Abstract]( 1994)Previous research has shown that chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve using charge balanced biphasic current pulses at rates of up to 500 pulses per second (pps) does not adversely affect the adjacent spiral ganglion population. More recently, a number of clinical trials have suggested that speech processing strategies based on high pulse rates (e.g. 1000 pps), can further improve speech perception. In the present study we evaluated the physiological and histopathological response of the cochlea following long-term stimulation using rates of 1000 pps. Thirteen normal hearing cats were bilaterally implanted with scala tympani electrodes and unilaterally stimulated using 25-50 �s per phase charge balanced biphasic current pulses presented at 1000 pps. Additional charge balance was achieved by shorting the electrodes between current pulses. Each animal was stimulated for periods ranging from 700 - 2100 hours at current levels within its dynamic range. Auditory brainstem responses to both acoustic (ABR) and electrical (EABR) stimuli were periodically recorded throughout the chronic stimulation program. At completion of the program the cochleas were prepared for histological examination. While all animals exhibited an increase in acoustic thresholds following surgery, click evoked ABR's returned to near normal levels in half the animals. Frequency specific stimuli indicated that the most extensive hearing loss occurred adjacent to the array (>12 kHz) while lower frequency thresholds appeared at or near normal Our EABR data showed that the majority of animals exhibited slight increases in threshold, although response amplitudes remained very stable for the duration of the stimulus program. The physiological data reported here will be correlated with cochlear histopathology. These initial findings suggest that chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation at high pulse rates, using a carefully designed charge balanced stimulator, does not appear to adversely affect the implanted cochlea.