Perceptual Differences Between Low-Frequency Analog and Pulsatile Stimulation as Shown by Single- and Multidimensional Scaling.

Cochlear-implant users who have experienced both analog and pulsatile sound coding strategies often have strong preferences for the sound quality of one over the other. This suggests that analog and pulsatile stimulation may provide different information or sound quality to an implant listener. It has been well documented that many implant listeners both prefer and perform better with multichannel analog than multichannel pulsatile strategies, although the reasons for these differences remain unknown. Here, we examine the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation on a single electrode. A multidimensional scaling task, analyzed across two dimensions, suggested that pulsatile stimulation was perceived to be considerably different from analog stimulation. Two associated tasks using single-dimensional scaling showed that analog stimulation was perceived to be less Clean on average than pulsatile stimulation and that the perceptual differences were not related to pitch. In a follow-up experiment, it was determined that the perceptual differences between analog and pulsatile stimulation were not dependent on the interpulse gap present in pulsatile stimulation. Although the results suggest that there is a large perceptual difference between analog and pulsatile stimulation, further work is needed to determine the nature of these differences.

Implantable microphones as an alternative to external microphones for cochlear implants.

Totally implantable cochlear implants may be able to address many of the problems cochlear implant users have around cosmetic appearances, discomfort, and restriction of activities. The major technological challenges that need to be solved to develop a totally implantable device relate to implanted microphone performance. Previous attempts at implanting microphones for cochlear implants have not performed as well as conventional cochlear implant microphones, and in addition have struggled with extraneous body or surface contact noise. Microphones can be implanted under the skin or act as sensors in the middle ear; however, evidence from middle ear implants suggest body and contact noise can be overcome by converting ossicular chain movements into digital signals. This article reviews implantable microphone systems and discusses the technology behind them.