...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology >Comparison of Signal and Gap-Detection Thresholds for Focused and Broad Cochlear Implant Electrode Configurations
【24h】

Comparison of Signal and Gap-Detection Thresholds for Focused and Broad Cochlear Implant Electrode Configurations

机译:重点和广泛的人工耳蜗植入电极配置的信号检测和间隙检测阈值的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Cochlear implant (CI) users usually exhibit marked across-electrode differences in detection thresholds with “focused” modes of stimulation, such as partial-tripolar (pTP) mode. This may reflect differences either in local neural survival or in the distance of the electrodes from the modiolus. To shed light on these two explanations, we compared stimulus-detection thresholds and gap-detection thresholds (GDTs) at comfortably loud levels for at least four electrodes in each of ten Advanced Bionics CI users, using 1031-pps pulse trains. The electrodes selected for each user had a wide range of stimulus-detection thresholds in pTP mode. We also measured across-electrode variations in both stimulus-detection and gap-detection tasks in monopolar (MP) mode. Both stimulus-detection and gap-detection thresholds correlated across modes. However, there was no significant correlation between stimulus-detection and gap-detection thresholds in either mode. Hence, gap-detection thresholds likely tap a source of across-electrode variation additional to, or different from, that revealed by stimulus-detection thresholds. Stimulus-detection thresholds were significantly lower for apical than for basal electrodes in both modes; this was only true for gap detection in pTP mode. Finally, although the across-electrode standard deviation in stimulus-detection thresholds was greater in pTP than in MP mode, the reliability of these differences—assessed by dividing the across-electrode standard deviation by the standard deviation across adaptive runs for each electrode—was similar for the two modes; this metric was also similar across modes for gap detection. Hence across-electrode differences can be revealed using clinically available MP stimulation, with a reliability comparable to that observed with focused stimulation.
机译:人工耳蜗(CI)使用者通常在“阈值”刺激模式(例如部分三极(pTP)模式)的检测阈值上表现出明显的跨电极差异。这可能反映出局部神经存活或电极与阴茎距离的差异。为了阐明这两种解释,我们使用1031个pps脉冲序列,比较了十个Advanced Bionics CI用户中至少四个电极在舒适大声级别上的刺激检测阈值和间隙检测阈值(GDT)。为每个用户选择的电极在pTP模式下具有广泛的刺激检测阈值。我们还测量了在单极(MP)模式下刺激检测和间隙检测任务中的跨电极变化。刺激检测和缺口检测阈值在各个模式之间相关。但是,在两种模式下,刺激检测阈值和缺口检测阈值之间均无显着相关性。因此,间隙检测阈值可能利用了跨电极变化的来源,该来源不同于或不同于刺激检测阈值所揭示的电极变化。在两种模式下,顶端的刺激检测阈值均明显低于基底电极。这仅适用于pTP模式下的间隙检测。最后,尽管在pTP中刺激检测阈值的跨电极标准偏差大于MP模式,但是这些差异的可靠性(通过将跨电极标准偏差除以每个电极的自适应运行的标准偏差来评估)两种模式相似;在用于间隙检测的所有模式中,该指标也相似。因此,使用临床上可用的MP刺激可以揭示跨电极差异,其可靠性可与聚焦刺激观察到的可靠性相媲美。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号