Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination

27Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Previous psychophysical and modeling studies suggest that cathodic stimulation by a cochlear implant (CI) may preferentially activate the peripheral processes of the auditory nerve, whereas anodic stimulation may preferentially activate the central axons. Because neural degeneration typically starts with loss of the peripheral processes, lower thresholds for cathodic than for anodic stimulation may indicate good local neural survival. We measured thresholds for 99-pulse-per-second trains of triphasic (TP) pulses where the central high-amplitude phase was either anodic (TP-A) or cathodic (TP-C). Thresholds were obtained in monopolar mode from four or five electrodes and a total of eight ears from subjects implanted with the Advanced Bionics CI. When between-subject differences were removed, there was a modest but significant correlation between the polarity effect (TP-C threshold minus TP-A threshold) and the average of TP-C and TP-A thresholds, consistent with the hypothesis that a large polarity effect corresponds to good neural survival. When data were averaged across electrodes for each subject, relatively low thresholds for TP-C correlated with a high “upper limit” (the pulse rate up to which pitch continues to increase) from a previous study (Cosentino et al. J Assoc Otolaryngol 17:371–382). Overall, the results provide modest indirect support for the hypothesis that the polarity effect provides an estimate of local neural survival.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Carlyon, R. P., Cosentino, S., Deeks, J. M., Parkinson, W., & Arenberg, J. A. (2018). Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Detection Thresholds in Cochlear Implant Users: Relationships with Average Threshold, Gap Detection, and Rate Discrimination. JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 19(5), 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-018-0677-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free