Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes

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 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically; Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users; Asymmetric pulse shapes with long delayed phases are more electrically efficient than symmetric pulses (+4 more)

Related

• Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically (similarity 0.96)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses (similarity 0.94)
• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users (similarity 0.94)
• Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects (similarity 0.91)
• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels (similarity 0.91)
• Cathodic pulses produce larger cochlear implant responses than anodic pulses across pulse shapes (similarity 0.90)
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference (similarity 0.89)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals (similarity 0.89)
• Cathodic current pulses produce larger neural responses than anodic ones (similarity 0.88)
• Asymmetry in cochlear implant pulse shapes biases one polarity of stimulation to dominate. (similarity 0.88)
• Cochlear implant testing used four pulse shapes favoring either cathodic or anodic stimulation (similarity 0.87)
• Pulse shape strongly determines cochlear implant stimulation current efficiency (similarity 0.85)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.85)
• Both anodic and cathodic stimulus phases can elicit auditory nerve responses (similarity 0.85)
• Pulse polarity effects on neural response differ significantly across pulse shapes (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels #contradicts (0.95) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses #corroborates (0.90) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Pulse polarity effects on neural response differ significantly across pulse shapes #qualifies (0.85)
• Asymmetric pulse shapes with long delayed phases are more electrically efficient than symmetric pulses #expands (0.80)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals #complicates (0.80)