Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels
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
Categorization
- QUESTION: Why would polarity effects differ between threshold and suprathreshold levels? Worth chasing the psychophysical evidence behind this asymmetry.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275
- XREF: connects to: Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals; Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users; Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309 (+6 more)
Broader Connections
- Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users
#corroborates(0.98) - Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses
#contradicts(0.85) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272 - Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels
#qualifies(0.80) - Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants
#expands(0.75) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309