Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference

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 (#corroborates, 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 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs; Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272; Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users (+4 more)

Related

• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals (similarity 0.93)
• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users (similarity 0.92)
• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels (similarity 0.92)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.91)
• Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically (similarity 0.90)
• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes (similarity 0.89)
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels (similarity 0.89)
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs (similarity 0.89)
• Neural degeneration cannot explain why anodic stimulation suits humans but cathodic suits animals (similarity 0.88)
• Degenerated nerve processes make anodic stimulation more effective (similarity 0.88)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses (similarity 0.88)
• Nerve degeneration or central blocking may explain anodic pulse dominance (similarity 0.87)
• Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans (similarity 0.87)
• Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects (similarity 0.87)
• Cathodic pulses produce larger cochlear implant responses than anodic pulses across pulse shapes (similarity 0.87)

Broader Connections

• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels #corroborates (0.92) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275
• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users #corroborates (0.90)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses #complicates (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels #qualifies (0.80)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals #qualifies (0.75)