Effect of stimulus polarity on detection thresholds in cochlear implant users: relationships with average threshold, gap detection, and rate discrimination.
Robert P. CarlyoniD, Stefano Cosentino, John M. Deeks, Wendy S. Parkinson, Julie Arenberg Bierer
Abstract
Previous psychophysical and modelling studies suggest that cathodic stimulation by a cochlear implant (CI) may preferentially activate the peripheral processes of the auditory nerve, whereas anodic stimulation may preferentially activate the central axons. Because neural degeneration typically starts with loss of the peripheral processes, lower thresholds for cathodic than for anodic stimulation may indicate good local neural survival. We measured thresholds for 99-pulse-per-second trains of triphasic (TP) pulses where the central high-amplitude phase was either anodic (TP-A) or cathodic (TP-C). Thresholds were obtained in monopolar mode from four or five electrodes and a total of eight ears from subjects implanted with the Advanced Bionics CI. When between-subject differences were removed, there was a modest but significant correlation between the polarity effect (TP-C threshold minus TP-A threshold) and the average of TP-C and TP-A thresholds, consistent with the hypothesis that a large polarity effect corresponds to good neural survival. When data were averaged across electrodes for each subject, relatively low thresholds for TP-C correlated with a high \"upper limit\" (the pulse rate up to which pitch continues to increase) from a previous study [Cosentino S, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Parkinson W, Bierer JA (2016) Rate discrimination, gap detection and ranking of temporal pitch in cochlear implant users. J Assoc Otolaryngol 17:371- 382]. Overall the results provide modest indirect support for the hypothesis that the polarity effect provides an estimate of local neural survival.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 43
- FWCI
- 3.27
- Field percentile
- top 8%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Revisiting Analog Electrical Stimulation with Current Focusing in a Guinea Pig Model of Cochlear Implants.
Victor Adenis, Ryan A. Bartholomew, … Julie G. Arenberg·bioRxiv·Jul 9, 2026
- Evaluating Cochlear Implant Stimulation Strategies Through Wide-field Calcium Imaging of the Auditory Cortex
Bruno Castellaro, Tony Ka Wing Yip, … Jan W. H. Schnupp·bioRxiv·Feb 5, 2024
- Effect of chronic stimulation and stimulus level on temporal processing by cochlear implant listeners
Robert P. Carlyon, François Guérit, … John M. Deeks·Journal of the Association for Research in OtolaryngologyPeer-reviewed·Dec 12, 2018
- Auditory evoked potential (P300) in cochlear implant users: a scoping review.
Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral, Nelma Ellen Zamberlan-Amorim, … Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis·bioRxiv·May 13, 2020
- Interaural time difference sensitivity under binaural cochlear implant stimulation persists at high pulse rates up to 900 pps
Alexa N Buck, Sarah Buchholz, … Nicole Roßkothen-Kuhl·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Mar 7, 2023
- Neurophysiological Sensitivity to Envelope and Pulse Timing Interaural Time Differences in Cochlear Implanted Rats with Different Hearing Experiences
Shiyi Fang, T. Fleiner, … Jan W. H. Schnupp·The Journal of PhysiologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 22, 2026