Electrically-evoked auditory steady-state responses as neural correlates of loudness growth in cochlear implant users

Eeckhoutte, Maaike Van; Wouters, Jan; Francart, Tom

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.002

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible explanation is related to the effect of CI channel and the corresponding place of stimulation in the cochlea. Although Van Eeckhoutte et al. (2017) found a good correspondence between electrically evoked ASSR amplitude and loudness growth for apical and mid CI channels, better correspondence to loudness growth (smaller mean square errors) was obtained for CI Channel 15 than for CI Channel 6 for monaural stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Part I, we investigated 40-Hz auditory steady-state response (ASSR) amplitudes for the use of objective loudness balancing across the ears for normal-hearing participants and found median across-ear ratios in ASSR amplitudes close to 1. In this part, we further investigated whether the ASSR can be used to estimate binaural loudness balance for listeners with asymmetric hearing, for whom binaural loudness balancing is of particular interest. We tested participants with asymmetric hearing and participants with bimodal hearing, who hear with electrical stimulation through a cochlear implant (CI) in one ear and with acoustical stimulation in the other ear. Behavioral loudness balancing was performed at different percentages of the dynamic range. Acoustical carrier frequencies were 500, 1000, or 2000 Hz, and CI channels were stimulated in apical or middle regions in the cochlea. For both groups, the ASSR amplitudes at balanced loudness levels were similar for the two ears, with median ratios between left and right ear stimulation close to 1. However, individual variability was observed. For participants with asymmetric hearing loss, the difference between the behavioral balanced levels and the ASSR-predicted balanced levels was smaller than 10 dB in 50% and 56% of cases, for 500 Hz and 2000 Hz, respectively. For bimodal listeners, these percentages were 89% and 60%. Apical CI channels yielded significantly better results (median difference near 0 dB) than middle CI channels, which had a median difference of −7.25 dB.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the apparent latency in this range was relatively stable and was, on average, 35.2 ms, which is similar to those reported in the literature 44,60,61 . This indicates that the scalp recorded ASSRs within this range originate from the same generators, and although peak frequencies differ across subjects, the choice of modulation frequency presumably does not have a large effect on relative measures that assess within subject effects such as the relation between the ASSR and loudness 30,31 or differences in modulation detection across different tonotopical regions 27,29 . Nevertheless, one should take this into account when comparing response amplitudes across populations, because a significant difference in activity at a specific modulation frequency could also indicate a shift in f peak .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Stimulus-evoked phase-locked activity along the human auditory pathway strongly varies across individuals

Gransier

Hofmann

Wieringen

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phase-locking to the temporal envelope of speech is associated with envelope processing and speech perception. The phase-locked activity of the auditory pathway, across modulation frequencies, is generally assessed at group level and shows a decrease in response magnitude with increasing modulation frequency. With the exception of increased activity around 40 and 80 to 100 Hz. Furthermore, little is known about the phase-locked response patterns to modulation frequencies ≤ 20 Hz, which are modulations predominately present in the speech envelope. In the present study we assess the temporal modulation transfer function (TMTFASSR) of the phase-locked activity of the auditory pathway, from 0.5 to 100 Hz at a high-resolution and by means of auditory steady-state responses. Although the group-averaged TMTFASSR corresponds well with those reported in the literature, the individual TMTFASSR shows a remarkable intersubject variability. This intersubject variability is especially present for ASSRs that originate from the cortex and are evoked with modulation frequencies ≤ 20 Hz. Moreover, we found that these cortical phase-locked activity patterns are robust over time. These results show the importance of the individual TMTFASSR when assessing phase-locked activity to envelope fluctuations, which can potentially be used as a marker for auditory processing.

show abstract

“…The advantage of the eASSR is that one can modulate a high-rate carrier to obtain the electrophysiological response, and hence obtain the electrophysiological thresholds with the same pulse rate as used in the clinical device. Hofmann and Wouters 22 and Van Eeckhoutte et al 61 both measured the 40-Hz eASSR magnitude as a function of current in bipolar mode and reported that the growth functions corresponded with loudness perception 61 and that that the detection thresholds could be estimated from the growth functions 22 . Our results show that the 40-Hz eASSR can be obtained, free from stimulation artifacts when using a clinicallyrelevant pulse rate of 900 pps and monopolar stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological assessment of temporal envelope processing in cochlear implant users

Gransier

Carlyon

Wouters

2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear-implant (CI) users rely on temporal envelope modulations (TEMs) to understand speech, and clinical outcomes depend on the accuracy with which these TEMs are encoded by the electrically-stimulated neural ensembles. Non-invasive EEG measures of this encoding could help clinicians identify and disable electrodes that evoke poor neural responses so as to improve CI outcomes. However, recording EEG during CI stimulation reveals huge stimulation artifacts that are up to orders of magnitude larger than the neural response. Here we used a custom-built EEG system having an exceptionally high sample rate to accurately measure the artefact, which we then removed using linear interpolation so as to reveal the neural response during continuous electrical stimulation. In ten adult CI users, we measured the 40-Hz electrically evoked auditory steady-state response (eASSR) and electrically evoked auditory change complex (eACC) to amplitude-modulated 900-pulses-per-second pulse trains, stimulated in monopolar mode (i.e. the clinical default), and at different modulation depths. We successfully measured artifact-free 40-Hz eASSRs and eACCs. Moreover, we found that the 40-Hz eASSR, in contrast to the eACC, showed substantial responses even at shallow modulation depths. We argue that the 40-Hz eASSR is a clinically feasible objective measure to assess TEM encoding in CI users.

show abstract

Electrically-evoked auditory steady-state responses as neural correlates of loudness growth in cochlear implant users

Cited by 14 publications

References 66 publications

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing

Objective Binaural Loudness Balancing Based on 40-Hz Auditory Steady-State Responses. Part II: Asymmetric and Bimodal Hearing

Stimulus-evoked phase-locked activity along the human auditory pathway strongly varies across individuals

Electrophysiological assessment of temporal envelope processing in cochlear implant users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About