Evaluation of Possible Effects of a Potassium Channel Modulator on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Carlyon, Robert P.; Deeks, John M.; Guérit, François; Lamping, Wiebke; Billig, Alexander J.; Large, Charles H.; Saeed, Shakeel R; Harris, Peter Q.

doi:10.1007/s10162-018-00694-z

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the stimuli were loudness balanced. The balancing procedure was based on that proposed by McKay and McDermott ( 1998 ) and similar to the one used by Carlyon et al ( 2018 ), presenting one stimulus fixed in level (standard) followed by a second stimulus to be adjusted (signal). After each presentation of the pair, the subject adjusted the loudness of the stimuli by either increasing or decreasing the level of the signal until they were perceived as equally loud.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Phantom Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pulse rate at which a breakpoint was estimated was taken as the upper limit. The fitting parameters for the broken stick were identical to those used by Carlyon et al ( 2018 ). An example MPC including the broken stick fit can be seen in Fig.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Phantom Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The range of place pitches is restricted by shallow insertion depths, while the number of discriminable place pitches is restricted by the number of implantable electrodes and the broad spread of neural excitation along the cochlea. The limitations regarding the perception of temporal pitch are revealed by the finding that the discrimination of changes in the rate of pulses presented to a single electrode by CI listeners is worse than the ability of normal-hearing listeners to detect changes in the fundamental frequencies of bandpass-filtered harmonic complexes (Moore and Carlyon 2005 ; Stahl et al 2016 ; Carlyon et al 2018 ). This is true even when those harmonics are unresolved by the peripheral auditory system, such that there are no consistent place-of-excitation cues to pitch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Lamping

Deeks

Marozeau

et al. 2020

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that a specialized high-temporal-acuity brainstem pathway can be activated by stimulating more apically in the cochlea than is achieved by cochlear implants (CIs) when programmed with contemporary clinical settings. We performed multiple experiments to test the effect on pitch perception of phantom stimulation and asymmetric current pulses, both supposedly stimulating beyond the most apical electrode of a CI. The two stimulus types were generated using a bipolar electrode pair, composed of the most apical electrode of the array and a neighboring, more basal electrode. Experiment 1 used a pitch-ranking procedure where neural excitation was shifted apically or basally using so-called phantom stimulation. No benefit of apical phantom stimulation was found on the highest rate up to which pitch ranks increased (upper limit), nor on the slopes of the pitch-ranking function above 300 pulses per second (pps). Experiment 2 used the same procedure to study the effects of apical pseudomonophasic pulses, where the locus of excitation was manipulated by changing stimulus polarity. A benefit of apical stimulation was obtained for the slopes above 300 pps. Experiment 3 used an adaptive rate discrimination procedure and found a small but significant benefit of both types of apical stimulation. Overall, the results show some benefit for apical stimulation on temporal pitch processing at high pulse rates but reveal that the effect is smaller and more variable across listeners than suggested by previous research. The results also provide some indication that the benefit of apical stimulation may decline over time since implantation.

show abstract

Section: Experiments 1: Phantom Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiments 1: Phantom Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Lamping

Deeks

Marozeau

et al. 2020

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There may of course have been some transfer between tasks, but this could not explain why the between-session effect size was larger for the (no-feedback) upper-limit measure than for low-rate discrimination. Second, we recently used a very similar procedure to study the effects of a pharmaceutical agent on temporal discriminations by CI listeners (Carlyon et al, 2018). That study involved testing 12 CI users before and after two 28-day periods of taking either a drug or a placebo.…”

Section: Learning and "Delayed Gains"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of chronic stimulation and stimulus level on temporal processing by cochlear implant listeners

Carlyon

Guérit

Billig

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments investigated potential changes in temporal processing during the months following activation of a cochlear implant (CI) and as a function of stimulus level.Experiment 1 tested patients on the day of implant activation and two and six months later. All stimuli were presented using direct stimulation of a single apical electrode. The dependent variables were rate discrimination ratios (RDRs) for pulse trains with rates centred on 120 pulses per second (pps), obtained using an adaptive procedure, and a measure of the upper limit of temporal pitch, obtained using a pitch-ranking procedure.All stimuli were presented at their most comfortable level (MCL). RDRs decreased from 1.23 to 1.16 and the upper limit increased from 357 to 485 pps from 0 to 2 months postactivation, with no overall change from 2 to 6 months. Because MCLs and hence the testing level increased across sessions, two further experiments investigated whether the performance changes observed across sessions could be due to level differences.Experiment 2 re-tested a subset of subjects at 9 months postactivation, using current levels similar to those used at 0 months. Although the stimuli sounded softer, some subjects showed lower RDRs and/or higher upper limits at this re-test. Experiment 3 measured RDRs and the upper limit for a separate group of subjects at levels equal to 60%, 80%, and 100% of the dynamic range. RDRs decreased with increasing level. The upper limit increased with increasing level for most subjects, with two notable exceptions. Implications of the results for temporal plasticity are discussed, along with possible influences of the effects of level and of across-session learning.

show abstract

“…Finally, an objective measure of perception would be useful for the development of new treatments or stimulation methods that are initially tested in animal models, as it would allow that evaluation to be performed using the same methods and stimuli as can be employed with humans. Examples of such novel methods include optogenetic and intra-neural stimulation (Middlebrooks and Snyder, 2007;Dieter et al, 2019) and pharmaceutical interventions designed to improve the fidelity of the neural response (Chambers et al, 2017;Carlyon et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using interleaved stimulation to measure the size and selectivity of the sustained phaselocked neural response to cochlear-implant stimulation

Carlyon¹,

Guérit²,

Deeks³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured the sustained neural response to electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant(CI). To do so we interleaved two stimuli with frequencies F1 and F2 Hz and recorded a neuraldistortion response (NDR) at F2-F1 Hz. We show that, because any one time-point containsonly the F1 or F2 stimulus, the instantaneous nonlinearities typical of electrical artefactshould not produce distortion at this frequency. However if the stimulus is smoothed, such asby charge integration at the nerve membrane, subsequent (neural) nonlinearities can producea component at F2-F1 Hz. We stimulated a single CI electrode with interleaved sinusoids orinterleaved amplitude-modulated pulse trains such that F2=1.5F1, and found no evidence foran NDR when F2-F1 was between 90-120 Hz. However, interleaved amplitude-modulated pulsetrains with F2-F1 40 Hz revealed a substantial NDR with a group delay of about 45 ms,consistent with a thalamic and/or cortical response. The NDR could be measured even fromrecording electrodes adjacent to the implant and at the highest pulse rates (>4000 pps) usedclinically. We then measured the selectivity of this sustained response by presenting F1 andF2 to different electrodes and at different between-electrode distances. This revealed abroad tuning that, we argue, reflects the overlap between the excitation elicited by the twoelectrodes. Our results also provide a glimpse of the neural nonlinearity in the auditorysystem, unobscured by the biomechanical cochlear nonlinearities that accompany acousticstimulation. Several potential clinical applications of our findings are discussed.

show abstract

Evaluation of Possible Effects of a Potassium Channel Modulator on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners

The Effect of Phantom Stimulation and Pseudomonophasic Pulse Shapes on Pitch Perception by Cochlear Implant Listeners

Effect of chronic stimulation and stimulus level on temporal processing by cochlear implant listeners

Using interleaved stimulation to measure the size and selectivity of the sustained phaselocked neural response to cochlear-implant stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About