Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals

Evidence

While at hearing threshold, no consistent difference between polarities has been observed, a large number of studies have reported that anodic stimulation is more effective than cathodic stimulation at suprathreshold levels (Macherey et al. 2006 , 2008 ; Undurraga et al. 2013 ; Carlyon et al. 2013 ). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275; Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users; Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs (+5 more)

Related

• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels (similarity 0.94)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.94)
• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users (similarity 0.93)
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference (similarity 0.93)
• Cathodic pulses are more efficient in animals but anodic pulses in humans (similarity 0.90)
• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes (similarity 0.89)
• Neural degeneration cannot explain why anodic stimulation suits humans but cathodic suits animals (similarity 0.89)
• Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects (similarity 0.87)
• Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically (similarity 0.87)
• Cathodic pulses produce larger cochlear implant responses than anodic pulses across pulse shapes (similarity 0.87)
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs (similarity 0.87)
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels (similarity 0.87)
• Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants (similarity 0.87)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses (similarity 0.87)
• Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels #expands (0.95) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275
• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users #expands (0.90)
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs #qualifies (0.80)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses #corroborates (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels #qualifies (0.75)