ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2016
Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined channel interactions using interleaved pulse trains to assess masking and potential facilitative effects in cochlear-implant recipients using clinically relevant stimuli. Psychophysical thresholds were measured for two adjacent mid-array electrodes; one served as the masker and the other as the probe. Two rates representative of those found in present-day strategies were tested: 1700 and 3400 pulses per second per channel. Four masker levels ranging from sub-threshold to loud-but-comfortable were tested. It was hypothesized that low-level maskers would produce facilitative effects, shifting to masking effects at high levels, and that faster rates would yield smaller masking effects due to greater stochastic neural firing patterns. Twenty-nine ears with Cochlear or Advanced Bionics devices were tested. High-level maskers produced more masking than low-level maskers, as expected. Facilitation was not observed for sub-threshold or threshold-level maskers in most cases. High masker levels yielded reduced probe thresholds for two Advanced Bionics subjects. This was partly eliminated with a longer temporal offset between each masker-probe pulse pair, as was used with Cochlear subjects. These findings support the use of temporal gaps between stimulation of subsequent electrodes to reduce channel interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.