Melody recognition and musical interval perception by deaf subjects stimulated with electrical pulse trains through single cochlear implant electrodes

1995 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 886-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sipke Pijl ◽  
Dietrich W. F. Schwarz
2008 ◽  
Vol 100 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Middlebrooks

Cochlear implant speech processors transmit temporal features of sound as amplitude modulation of constant-rate electrical pulse trains. This study evaluated the central representation of amplitude modulation in the form of phase-locked firing of neurons in the auditory cortex. Anesthetized pigmented guinea pigs were implanted with cochlear electrode arrays. Stimuli were 254 pulse/s (pps) trains of biphasic electrical pulses, sinusoidally modulated with frequencies of 10–64 Hz and modulation depths of −40 to −5 dB re 100% (i.e., 1–56.2% modulation). Single- and multiunit activity was recorded from multi-site silicon-substrate probes. The maximum frequency for significant phase locking (limiting modulation frequency) was ≥60 Hz for 42% of recording sites, whereas phase locking to pulses of unmodulated pulse trains rarely exceeded 30 pps. The strength of phase locking to frequencies ≥40 Hz often varied nonmonotonically with modulation depth, commonly peaking at modulation depths around −15 to −10 dB. Cortical phase locking coded modulation frequency reliably, whereas a putative rate code for frequency was confounded by rate changes with modulation depth. Group delay computed from the slope of mean phase versus modulation frequency tended to increase with decreasing limiting modulation frequency. Neurons in cortical extragranular layers had lower limiting modulation frequencies than did neurons in thalamic afferent layers. Those observations suggest that the low-pass characteristic of cortical phase locking results from intracortical filtering mechanisms. The results show that cortical neurons can phase lock to modulated electrical pulse trains across the range of modulation frequencies and depths presented by cochlear implant speech processors.


Author(s):  
Robert P. Carlyon ◽  
François Guérit ◽  
John M. Deeks ◽  
Andrew Harland ◽  
Robin Gransier ◽  
...  

AbstractWe measured the sustained neural response to electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant (CI). To do so, we interleaved two stimuli with frequencies F1 and F2 Hz and recorded a neural distortion response (NDR) at F2-F1 Hz. We show that, because any one time point contains only the F1 or F2 stimulus, the instantaneous nonlinearities typical of electrical artefact should not produce distortion at this frequency. However, if the stimulus is smoothed, such as by charge integration at the nerve membrane, subsequent (neural) nonlinearities can produce a component at F2-F1 Hz. We stimulated a single CI electrode with interleaved sinusoids or interleaved amplitude-modulated pulse trains such that F2 = 1.5F1, and found no evidence for an NDR when F2-F1 was between 90 and 120 Hz. However, interleaved amplitude-modulated pulse trains with F2-F1~40 Hz revealed a substantial NDR with a group delay of about 45 ms, consistent with a thalamic and/or cortical response. The NDR could be measured even from recording electrodes adjacent to the implant and at the highest pulse rates (> 4000 pps) used clinically. We then measured the selectivity of this sustained response by presenting F1 and F2 to different electrodes and at different between-electrode distances. This revealed a broad tuning that, we argue, reflects the overlap between the excitation elicited by the two electrodes. Our results also provide a glimpse of the neural nonlinearity in the auditory system, unaffected by the biomechanical cochlear nonlinearities that accompany acoustic stimulation. Several potential clinical applications of our findings are discussed.


2010 ◽  
Vol 268 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Di Nardo ◽  
Alessandro Scorpecci ◽  
Sara Giannantonio ◽  
Francesca Cianfrone ◽  
Gaetano Paludetti

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Huang ◽  
Thomas Lu ◽  
Benjamin Sheffield ◽  
Fan-Gang Zeng

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 045013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madhuvanthi Muralidharan ◽  
Tianruo Guo ◽  
Mohit N Shivdasani ◽  
David Tsai ◽  
Shelley Fried ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document