PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R V Shannon

Publications and source records attributed to R V Shannon.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation.

Binaural loudness balance between electric and acoustic stimulation is obtained in auditory brainstem implant listeners who had substantial acoustic hearing in one ear. The data are well described by a linear relationship between acoustic decibels and electric microamps. Based upon this linear relationship, we propose an exponential model of loudness growth in electric stimulation. The exponential model predicts that the loudness growth function can be determined solely by the threshold and the uncomfortable loudness level in electric stimulation. This prediction is consistent with previous psychophysical data on loudness functions. Implications of this finding for speech processor designs are discussed.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed1992

A model of safe levels for electrical stimulation.

A model is presented that represents a large body of data on safety and damage levels of electrical stimulation. The predictions of the model are consistent with known principles of current flow and known mechanisms of damage around stimulating electrodes. It is proposed that limits on levels of electrical stimulation take into account the location of the electrode relative to the stimulated tissue and these limits can be computed algorithmically from the model.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

Temporal modulation transfer functions in patients with cochlear implants.

Thresholds for the detection of amplitude modulation were measured in cochlear implant patients as a function of modulation frequency. Three types of threshold measures were taken: detection of amplitude modulation, detection of low-frequency sinusoidal current waveforms, and detection of beats in two-tone complexes. The temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF), defined as the plot of modulation detection thresholds as a function of modulation frequency, show low-pass filter characteristics with similar cutoff frequencies for all three tasks. The similarity of these three measures suggests a common temporal mechanism. While modulation detection differs somewhat in normal-hearing and implanted listeners, both exhibit the same general characteristics. The TMTFs are low pass with a cutoff frequency near 70 Hz for normal-hearing listeners and near 140 Hz for implanted listeners. Patients with cochlear implants can best detect temporal modulation at modulation frequencies below 300 Hz, and are most sensitive to 80- to 100-Hz modulation. At high carrier levels many implant patients could detect smaller modulation amplitudes than normal-hearing listeners, a finding that is consistent with the smaller intensity DLs for some implanted listeners at high levels. These results demonstrate that, while implant listeners cannot discriminate steady-state, high-frequency stimuli, speech information might be conveyed by the envelope of the high-frequency components of speech.

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed1990

Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.

Auditory performance on basic psychophysical tasks was measured in ten deaf patients with electrodes positioned near their cochlear nucleus. The device is called the auditory brainstem implant (ABI). Electrodes were placed during surgery to remove an acoustic neuroma, which results in the removal of the VIII nerve and, thus deafness. In patients who received auditory sensation from electrical stimulation we measured auditory performance on standard psychophysical tasks: thresholds, loudness growth, intensity discrimination, temporal integration, temporal modulation detection, gap detection, and forward masking. Plots of threshold as a function of frequency or biphasic pulse duration were markedly different from those of patients with cochlear implants. The difference in threshold functions is probably partly due to the biophysical difference in the neural elements stimulated. Another possibility is that part of the difference is due to the highly abnormal spatial pattern of activation in the cochlear nucleus from electrical stimulation, which prevents normal spatial integration of activity. The usable range of electrical amplitudes above threshold is comparable with that of cochlear implants, typically 10-15 dB. Little temporal integration occurs over a range of stimulus durations from 2-1000 ms. When compared at equivalent loudness levels, gap detection thresholds are similar to, or a bit longer than, gap thresholds in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant patients. Forward masking recovery functions are similar to those of normal listeners and cochlear implant patients. Patients' ability to detect amplitude modulation as a function of modulation frequency is similar to that of cochlear implant patients and normal listeners. Thus, direct electrical stimulation of the brainstem produces temporal resolution that does not significantly differ from that of normal listeners when compared in equivalent amplitude units. This implies that the limiting factors for these tasks are more centrally located, and not directly related to threshold mechanisms. Thus, a properly designed speech processor could preserve the important temporal features of speech for these patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

A computer interface for psychophysical and speech research with the Nucleus cochlear implant.

A computer interface has been designed and implemented that allows presentation of biphasic pulse stimuli to patients with the Nucleus Ltd./Cochlear Corporation cochlear implant. The one version of the interface connects to a standard parallel output port of a PC or AT compatible computer, and another version plugs directly into a standard PC/XT bus slot. The host computer sends a stream of bytes to the parallel port that specifies the configuration of the desired output pulses. Upon receipt of the data, the interface generates the appropriate burst sequence that is delivered to the patient's external transmitter coil. The coded information is interpreted by the internal receiver that delivers the pulse to the specified electrodes at the specified amplitude and pulse width. This interface makes it possible to interleave pulses on two or more electrode pairs, to modulate the amplitude or timing of a pulse sequence, or to sweep a stimulus across the electrode array. Investigators can achieve stimulus control with this interface that allows them to conduct psychophysical, electrophysiological, and speech experiments not possible through the patient's speech processor or with available clinical interfaces.

Cochlear Implants↗
PubMed1990

Forward masking in patients with cochlear implants.

Forward masking was measured in 12 patients with cochlear implants. The amount of masking (in microamps) decreased linearly as a function of the logarithm of the signal delay from masker offset. Normalized forward-masking recovery functions for cochlear implants were similar to normalized functions of normal-hearing listeners, indicating that the mechanism of psychophysical forward masking is retrocochlear. These results indicate that the logarithm of acoustic amplitude should be mapped to microamps to produce normal forward masking in implanted patients. Despite the fact that the forward-masking recovery functions were similar across all patients, their performance with their speech processor varied widely.

Attention↗
PubMed1989

Threshold functions for electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus.

Thresholds to sinusoidal and biphasic pulsatile electrical stimuli were measured in two patients with electrodes positioned on the cochlear nucleus. The threshold functions differ from those observed in patients with scala tympani electrodes, primarily at low sinusoidal frequencies and long pulse widths. This difference is probably due to differences in the biophysical properties of the stimulated neural tissues in the two regions.

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed1989

A model of threshold for pulsatile electrical stimulation of cochlear implants.

Threshold measures have been made as a function of the repetition rate and pulse duration of biphasic electrical pulses applied to the cochlea through a cochlear implant (Shannon, 1985). Nonmonotonicities in those data suggest that at least two separate processes are involved in the translation of an electrical stimulus into a threshold perception. This paper presents a phenomenological model which accounts for the key features of the threshold data. The model consists of two parallel processes which are each power-law functions of the instantaneous current amplitude. The output of each process is then integrated with a short time constant (approximately 1-2 ms). The maximum of these two outputs represents the sensory magnitude of that electrical stimulus. Threshold data from 14 patients implanted with three different devices are compared to model predictions over a wide range of pulse durations and pulse rates. Since the model accurately predicts thresholds over such a wide range of stimuli, it is possible that it can predict the threshold of an arbitrary electrical stimulus. This model could be used to construct a speech processor that would convert any acoustic waveform into an equivalent electrical waveform that would preserve threshold relationships.

Auditory Threshold↗
PubMed1989

Detection of gaps in sinusoids and pulse trains by patients with cochlear implants.

Gap detection thresholds were measured in patients with the Nucleus and Symbion cochlear implants as a function of several current waveform parameters. Detection of gaps in an electrical sinusoidal stimulus or in a train of biphasic pulses by implanted patients was similar to detection of gaps in comparable acoustic stimuli by normal listeners. Threshold gaps were 20-50 ms for low-level stimuli and improved with stimulus level to 2-5 ms for high-level stimuli. Gap detection performance was not affected by the electrode position in the cochlea or by the distance between stimulating electrodes. The data from most patients were well fitted by a trading relation between the duration of the gap and the square of stimulus intensity, indicating energy detection. The similarity of gap thresholds for normal subjects and implant patients suggests that many details of the peripheral neural activity are probably not important for this task, and that there is no retrocochlear loss of auditory temporal resolution with sensorineural hearing loss.

Acoustic Stimulation↗