4.4 Article

Impact of Aging and the Electrode-to-Neural Interface on Temporal Processing Ability in Cochlear-Implant Users: Gap Detection Thresholds

期刊

TRENDS IN HEARING
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2331216520956560

关键词

cochlear implant; aging; temporal processing; neural survival; gap detection

资金

  1. NIH [R01-AG051603, R37-AG09191, F32-DC016478, T32-DC000046E]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate processing of temporal information is critical to understanding speech through a cochlear implant (CI). This has potential implications for the growing population of CI users who are >= 65 years of age because of age-related auditory temporal processing deficits. The goal of this study was to measure temporal processing ability in a gap detection task in younger, middle-aged, and older CI users and to determine the relative contributions of chronological age and peripheral neural survival to performance. Single-electrode gap detection thresholds (GDTs) were measured using direct stimulation at five electrode locations and three electrical stimulation rates. The relationship between peripheral status (e.g., electrode-to-neural interface) and GDTs was assessed by the slope of the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) amplitude growth function. Results showed that ECAP slope was the strongest subject-level predictor of GDTs. Steeper ECAP slopes, which are partially indicative of better peripheral function, were associated with better GDTs in younger participants. However, ECAP slope significantly interacted with stimulation rate and age, suggesting that ECAP slopes were not predictive of GDTs in middle-aged and older participants at some stimulation rates. ECAP slope was also related to age, with middle-aged and older participants exhibiting relatively shallow slopes and smaller ranges of slopes compared with younger participants. This pattern of ECAP results limited the evaluation of the independent effects of aging per se and peripheral status on temporal processing ability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据