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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In cochlear stimulators, the electrode configuration has been studied to achieve current focusing using bipolar and tripolar structures compared to monopolar stimulation, while demanding a larger threshold for activation, which results in a higher energy requirement [121].”
From Active Neural Interface Circuits and Systems for Selective Control of Peripheral Nerves: A Review (2024) · cites this paper as [121]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Transformed Up-Down Methods in Psychoacoustics
Levitt, H. (1971) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1912375 · Cited by 5,505
Better speech recognition with cochlear implants
Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/352236a0 · Cited by 1,211
Friesen, L. M., Shannon, R. V., Başkent, D., & Wang, X. (2001) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/1.1381538 · Cited by 1,050
An Introduction to the Physiology of Hearing
Pickles, J. O. (1982) · Cited by 865
Electrical Stimulation of the Auditory Nerve in Man
SIMMONS, F. B. (1966) · Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1001/archotol.1966.00760030004003 · Cited by 618
Liberman, M. C., & Dodds, L. W. (1984) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/0378-5955(84)90025-x · Cited by 578
Role of Electrode Placement as a Contributor to Variability in Cochlear Implant Outcomes
Finley, C. C., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., Whiting, B. R., Chole, R. A., Neely, G. J., Hullar, T. E., & Skinner, M. W. (2008) · Otology & Neurotology · doi:10.1097/mao.0b013e318184f492 · Cited by 549
Zeng, F. (2004) · Trends in Amplification · doi:10.1177/108471380400800102 · Cited by 404
Self-citationFishman, K. E., Shannon, R. V., & Slattery, W. H. (1997) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4005.1201 · Cited by 382
Abbas, P. J., Brown, C., Shallop, J. K., Firszt, J. B., Hughes, M. L., Hong, S. H., & Staller, S. J. (1999) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/00003446-199902000-00005 · Cited by 324
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Chistovich, 1957, Frequency characteristics of the masking effect, Biofizika, 2, 714
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Auditory Spectral Resolution on Listening Effort Revealed by Pupil Dilation
Winn, M. B., Edwards, J., & Litovsky, R. Y. (2015) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000145 · Cited by 283
Celebrating the one millionth cochlear implant
Zeng, F. (2022) · JASA Express Letters · doi:10.1121/10.0012825 · Cited by 200
Self-citationOxenham, A. J., & Kreft, H. A. (2014) · Trends in Hearing · doi:10.1177/2331216514553783 · Cited by 135
Improving speech perception in noise with current focusing in cochlear implant users
Srinivasan, A. G., Padilla, M. A., Shannon, R. V., & Landsberger, D. M. (2013) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2013.02.004 · Cited by 126
Current focussing in cochlear implants: An analysis of neural recruitment in a computational model
Kalkman, R. K., Briaire, J. J., & Frijns, J. H. M. (2014) · Hearing Research · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2014.12.004 · Cited by 100
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
- Venue
- Hearing Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 283
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 45-58
- ISSN
- 0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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
