Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs

Evidence

If neural degeneration had an effect on polarity sensitivity, we would expect the polarity effect to increase over time and to reach positive values when fibers are degenerated. This does not seem to be the case as the level difference between polarities rather tends to decrease right after deafening for several subjects and then to remain roughly constant. … Although the polarity effect is opposite in sign for the two species, it is interesting to note that its magnitude is similar for RPS and for TRI. For RPS-IPG, the smaller effect obtained psychophysically may be due to the fact that the delayed long, low-amplitude phase contributed to perception whereas it did not contribute to the neural responses recorded here. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2311 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

If neural degeneration had an effect on polarity sensitivity, we would expect the polarity effect to increase over time and to reach positive values when fibers are degenerated. This does not seem to be the case as the level difference between polarities rather tends to decrease right after deafening for several subjects and then to remain roughly constant. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Duration of deafness did not influence the effect of polarity, suggesting that neural degeneration may not entirely account for the higher sensitivity to anodic stimulation observed in humans. However, the morphology of the nerve fibers and the cochlear geometry are different in the two species and may play an additional role on neural excitation (Rattay et al. 2001 ). — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals; Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272; Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309 (+4 more)

Related

• Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans (similarity 0.96)
• Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants (similarity 0.94)
• Neural degeneration does not increase polarity sensitivity following deafening (similarity 0.93)
• Polarity effect magnitude is similar in guinea pigs and humans but reversed in sign (similarity 0.91)
• Neural degeneration cannot explain why anodic stimulation suits humans but cathodic suits animals (similarity 0.90)
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels (similarity 0.89)
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference (similarity 0.89)
• Nerve degeneration or central blocking may explain anodic pulse dominance (similarity 0.88)
• Species differences in final nerve geometry may drive the polarity reversal (similarity 0.88)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals (similarity 0.87)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.87)
• Spiral ganglion degeneration does not progressively increase polarity sensitivity (similarity 0.87)
• Pulse polarity effects on neural response differ significantly across pulse shapes (similarity 0.84)
• Degenerated nerve processes make anodic stimulation more effective (similarity 0.83)
• Neural degeneration does not alter CI pulse polarity sensitivity over time (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Neural degeneration does not increase polarity sensitivity following deafening #corroborates (0.95) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2311
• Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants #corroborates (0.92) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309
• Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans #corroborates (0.90) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference #contradicts (0.82)