CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Hearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Impairment and Communication

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation

Open access
Zhu, Ziyan, Tang, Qing, Zeng, Fan-Gang, Guan, Tian, Ye, Datian·2012·Hearing Research
DOI 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005PMC PMC3277661
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Sharp spatial selectivity is critical to auditory performance, particularly in pitch-related tasks. Most contemporary cochlear implants have employed monopolar stimulation that produces broad electric fields, which presumably contribute to poor pitch and pitch-related performance by implant users. Bipolar or tripolar stimulation can generate focused electric fields but requires higher current to reach threshold and, more interestingly, has not produced any apparent improvement in cochlear-implant performance. The present study addressed this dilemma by measuring psychophysical and physiological spatial selectivity with both broad and focused stimulations in the same cohort of subjects. Different current levels were adjusted by systematically measuring loudness growth for each stimulus, each stimulation mode, and in each subject. Both psychophysical and physiological measures showed that, although focused stimulation produced significantly sharper spatial tuning than monopolar stimulation, it could shift the tuning position or even split the tuning tips. The altered tuning with focused stimulation is interpreted as a result of poor electrode-to-neuron interface in the cochlea, and is suggested to be mainly responsible for the lack of consistent improvement in implant performance. A linear model could satisfactorily quantify the psychophysical and physiological data and derive the tuning width. Significant correlation was found between the individual physiological and psychophysical tuning widths, and the correlation was improved by log-linearly transforming the physiological data to predict the psychophysical data. Because the physiological measure took only one-tenth of the time of the psychophysical measure, the present model is of high clinical significance in terms of predicting and improving cochlear-implant performance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Chistovich, 1957, Frequency characteristics of the masking effect, Biofizika, 2, 714

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 116

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhu, Z., Tang, Q., Zeng, F.-G., Guan, T., & Ye, D.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Zhu, Ziyan
  • Zeng, Fan-Gang
  • Ye, Datian
ORCID
Venue
Hearing Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-01
Volume
283
Issue
1-2
Pages
45-58
ISSN
0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.005
PMC
PMC3277661
OpenAlex
W1973372355
Cited by
115
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (30800234, 60871083)
  • Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China
  • National Institutes of Health (P30-DC008369, RO1-DC008858)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
cochlear implants, spatial selectivity, monopolar stimulation, bipolar stimulation, electric field focusing, pitch perception, loudness growth
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Aged, Cochlear Implants, Electric Stimulation, Female, Humans, Loudness Perception, Male, Middle Aged, Perceptual Masking, Pitch Perception, Prosthesis Design, Psychoacoustics, Correction of Hearing Impairment, Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted, Linear Models, Cochlear Implantation, Persons with Hearing Disabilities, Persons With Hearing Impairments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review