No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
Loudness summation using focused and unfocused electrical stimulation
1. Berenstein, C. K. , Mens, L. H. M. , Mulder, J. J. S. , and Vanpouke, F. J. (2008). “Current steering and current focusing in cochlear implants: Comparison of monopolar, tripolar, and virtual channel electrode configurations,” Ear Hear 29, 250–260.
2. Berenstein, C. K. , Vanpoucke, F. J. , Mulder, J. J. , and Mens, L. H. (2010). “Electrical field imaging as a means to predict the loudness of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implant patients,” Hear. Res. 270, 28–38.
5. Chatterjee, M. (1999). “Effects of stimulation mode on threshold and loudness growth in multielectrode cochlear implants,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 850–860.
6. Fielden, C. A. , Kluk, K. , and McKay, C. M. (2013). “Place specificity of monopolar and tripolar stimuli in cochlear implants: The influence of residual masking,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 133, 4109–4123.
7. Frijns, J. H. , Dekker, D. M. , and Briaire, J. J. (2011). “Neural excitation patterns induced by phased-array stimulation in the implanted human cochlea,” Acta Otolaryngol. 131, 362–370.
8. Kwon, B. J. , and van den Honert, C. (2006). “Effect of electrode configuration on psychophysical forward masking in cochlear implant listeners,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 119, 2994–3002.
9. Landsberger, D. M. , and Galvin, J. (2011). “Discrimination between sequential and simultaneous virtual channels with electrical hearing,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130, 1559–1566.
12. McKay, C. M. , McDermott, H. J. , and Clark, G. M. (1995). “Loudness summation for two channels of stimulation in cochlear implants: Effects of spatial and temporal separation,” Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 104 (Suppl. 166), 230–233.
13. McKay, C. M. , Remine, M. D. , and McDermott, H. J. (2001). “Loudness summation for pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea: Effects of rate, electrode separation, level, and mode of stimulation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1514–1524.
14. Saoji, A. A. , Landsberger, D. M. , Padilla, M. , and Litvak, L. M. (2013). “Masking patterns for monopolar and phantom electrode stimulation in cochlear implants,” Hear. Res. 298, 109–116.
15. Schoenecker, M. C. , Bonham, B. H. , Stakhovskaya, O. A. , Snyder, R. L. , and Leake, P. A. (2012). “Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior collliculus,” J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. Oct. 13(5), 665–672.
17. Smith, Z. M. , Parkinson, W. S. , and Long, C. J. (2013). “Multipolar current focusing increases spectral resolution in cochlear implants,” in Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, pp. 2796–2799.
18. Srinivasan, A. G. , Landsberger, D. M. , and Shannon, R. V. (2010). “Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation,” Hear. Res. 270, 89–100.
19. Srinivasan, A. G. , Padilla, M. , Shannon, R. V. , and Landsberger, D. M. (2013). “Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users,” Hear. Res. 299, 29–36.
20. Tong, Y. C. , Blamey, P. J. , Dowell, R. C. , and Clark, G. M. (1983). “Psychophysical studies evaluating the feasibility of a speech processing strategy for a multiple-channel cochlear implant,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 74, 73–80.
21. Tong, Y. C. , and Clark, G. M. (1986). “Loudness summation, masking, and temporal interaction for sensations produced by electrical stimulation of two sites in the human cochlea,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79, 1958–1966.
Article metrics loading...
With a cochlear implant, when stimulation from multiple channels is interleaved, the perceived loudness is greater than the loudness associated with any of the individual channels presented in isolation. This phenomenon is known as loudness summation. This study examined if loudness summation with monopolar and tripolar stimulation were equivalent at two loudnesses and two spacing configurations. Results suggest that loudness summation is similar for monopolar and tripolar modes. However, larger summation differences were observed for softer sounds and louder sounds with a larger spatial separation. The results are consistent with the idea that loudness summation is dependent on channel interaction and have implications for implementing current-focused processing strategies.
Full text loading...
Most read this month