These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Relationship Between Peripheral and Psychophysical Measures of Amplitude Modulation Detection in Cochlear Implant Users.
    Author: Tejani VD, Abbas PJ, Brown CJ.
    Journal: Ear Hear; 2017; 38(5):e268-e284. PubMed ID: 28207576.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the relationship between electrophysiological and psychophysical measures of amplitude modulation (AM) detection. Prior studies have reported both measures of AM detection recorded separately from cochlear implant (CI) users and acutely deafened animals, but no study has made both measures in the same CI users. Animal studies suggest a progressive loss of high-frequency encoding as one ascends the auditory pathway from the auditory nerve to the cortex. Because the CI speech processor uses the envelope of an ongoing acoustic signal to modulate pulse trains that are subsequently delivered to the intracochlear electrodes, it is of interest to explore auditory nerve responses to modulated stimuli. In addition, psychophysical AM detection abilities have been correlated with speech perception outcomes. Thus, the goal was to explore how the auditory nerve responds to AM stimuli and to relate those physiologic measures to perception. DESIGN: Eight patients using Cochlear Ltd. Implants participated in this study. Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) were recorded using a 4000 pps pulse train that was sinusoidally amplitude modulated at 125, 250, 500, and 1000 Hz rates. Responses were measured for each pulse over at least one modulation cycle for an apical, medial, and basal electrode. Psychophysical modulation detection thresholds (MDTs) were also measured via a three-alternative forced choice, two-down, one-up adaptive procedure using the same modulation frequencies and electrodes. RESULTS: ECAPs were recorded from individual pulses in the AM pulse train. ECAP amplitudes varied sinusoidally, reflecting the sinusoidal variation in the stimulus. A modulated response amplitude (MRA) metric was calculated as the difference in the maximal and minimum ECAP amplitudes over the modulation cycles. MRA increased as modulation frequency increased, with no apparent cutoff (up to 1000 Hz). In contrast, MDTs increased as the modulation frequency increased. This trend is inconsistent with the physiologic measures. For a fixed modulation frequency, correlations were observed between MDTs and MRAs; this trend was evident at all frequencies except 1000 Hz (although only statistically significant for 250 and 500 Hz AM rates), possibly an indication of central limitations in processing of high modulation frequencies. Finally, peripheral responses were larger and psychophysical thresholds were lower in the apical electrodes relative to basal and medial electrodes, which may reflect better cochlear health and neural survival evidenced by lower preoperative low-frequency audiometric thresholds and steeper growth of neural responses in ECAP amplitude growth functions for apical electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: Robust ECAPs were recorded for all modulation frequencies tested. ECAP amplitudes varied sinusoidally, reflecting the periodicity of the modulated stimuli. MRAs increased as the modulation frequency increased, a trend we attribute to neural adaptation. For low modulation frequencies, there are multiple current steps between the peak and valley of the modulation cycle, which means successive stimuli are more similar to one another and neural responses are more likely to adapt. Higher MRAs were correlated with lower psychophysical thresholds at low modulation frequencies but not at 1000 Hz, implying a central limitation to processing of modulated stimuli.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]