Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?

dc.contributor.authorVenter, Pieter J.
dc.contributor.authorHanekom, Johannes Jurgens
dc.contributor.emailjohan.hanekom@up.ac.zaen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-02T05:48:37Z
dc.date.available2015-09-02T05:48:37Z
dc.date.issued2014-10
dc.description.abstractLiterature often refers to a 300 pps limit for cochlear implant (CI) electrical stimulation above which pulse rate discrimination deteriorates or above which rate pitch is not perceived to increase. The present study investigated the effect on pulse rate difference limens (PRDLs) when using compound stimuli in which identical pulse trains were applied to multiple electrodes across the length of the electrode array and compares the results to those of single-electrode stimuli. PRDLs of seven CI users were determined in two stimulus pulse phase conditions, one in which the phase delays between pulses on different electrodes were minimized (burst mode) and a second in which they were maximized (spread mode). PRDLs were measured at base rates of 100 pps to 600 pps in 100 pps intervals, using compound stimuli on one, two, five, nine and 18 electrodes. As smaller PRDLs were expected to reflect improved rate pitch perception, 18-electrode spread mode stimuli were also included in a pitch ranking task. PRDLs improved markedly when multi-electrode compound stimuli were used, with average spread mode PRDLs across listeners of between 6 and 8% of the base rate in the whole range tested (i.e., up to 600 pps). PRDLs continued to improve as more electrodes were included, up to at least nine electrodes in the compound stimulus. Stimulus pulse phase had a significant influence on the results, with PRDLs being smaller in spread mode. Results indicate that pulse rate discrimination may be manipulated with stimulus parameter choice, so that previously-observed deterioration of PRDLs at 300 pps probably does not reflect a fundamental limitation to rate discrimination. However, rate pitch perception did not improve in the conditions that resulted in smaller PRDLs. This may indicate that listeners used cues other than pitch to perform the rate discrimination task, or may reflect limitations in the electrically-evoked neural excitation patterns presented to a rate pitch extraction mechanism.en_ZA
dc.description.embargo2015-10-31en_ZA
dc.description.librarianhb2015en_ZA
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Research Foundation (South Africa)en_ZA
dc.description.urihttp://link.springer.com/journal/10162en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationVenter, PJ & Hanekom, JJ 2014, 'Is there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?', Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 849-866.en_ZA
dc.identifier.issn1525-3961 (print)
dc.identifier.issn1438-7573 (online)
dc.identifier.other10.1007/s10162-014-0468-6
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2263/49688
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherSpringeren_ZA
dc.rights© 2014 Association for Research in Otolaryngology. The original publication is available at : http://link.springer.comjournal/10162.en_ZA
dc.subjectRate pitchen_ZA
dc.subjectRate discrimination thresholdsen_ZA
dc.subjectMultielectrode stimulien_ZA
dc.subjectAcross-channel integrationen_ZA
dc.subjectCochlear implant (CI)en_ZA
dc.subjectPulse rate difference limens (PRDLs)en_ZA
dc.titleIs there a fundamental 300 Hz limit to pulse rate discrimination in cochlear implants?en_ZA
dc.typePostprint Articleen_ZA

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Venter_Is_2014.pdf
Size:
272.13 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Postprint Article

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: