Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users

Evidence

Figure 2c shows the response amplitude as a function of current level for the same subject and the same pulse shape. It can be seen that at all current levels, the response was larger for the cathodic (RPS-IPG-C) than for the anodic (RPS-IPG-A) pulse. As depicted in the next section, this trend was observed in most of our subjects. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals; Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275; Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects (+5 more)

Related

• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes (similarity 0.94)
• Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically (similarity 0.94)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals (similarity 0.93)
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference (similarity 0.92)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses (similarity 0.92)
• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels (similarity 0.92)
• Cathodic pulses produce larger cochlear implant responses than anodic pulses across pulse shapes (similarity 0.88)
• Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects (similarity 0.88)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.88)
• Cathodic current pulses produce larger neural responses than anodic ones (similarity 0.85)
• Cathodic pulses are more efficient in animals but anodic pulses in humans (similarity 0.85)
• Neural degeneration cannot explain why anodic stimulation suits humans but cathodic suits animals (similarity 0.84)
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels (similarity 0.83)
• Cochlear implant growth functions can behave non-monotonically near the top of the dynamic range (similarity 0.83)
• Cochlear implant testing used four pulse shapes favoring either cathodic or anodic stimulation (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses #contradicts (0.95) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes #contradicts (0.85)
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs #corroborates (0.80)