Polarity effect magnitude is similar in guinea pigs and humans but reversed in sign

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. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: Species differences in final nerve geometry may drive the polarity reversal; Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309; Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs

Related

• Species differences in final nerve geometry may drive the polarity reversal (similarity 0.93)
• Neural degeneration does not increase polarity sensitivity following deafening (similarity 0.92)
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs (similarity 0.91)
• Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants (similarity 0.91)
• Neural degeneration does not drive the anodic sensitivity seen in humans (similarity 0.89)
• Pulse polarity effects on neural response differ significantly across pulse shapes (similarity 0.88)
• Spiral ganglion degeneration does not progressively increase polarity sensitivity (similarity 0.87)
• Cochlear implant input-output responses can reverse polarity preference at high levels (similarity 0.87)
• Polarity effect magnitude is similar across guinea pigs and human cochlear implant users (similarity 0.85)
• Neural degeneration does not alter CI pulse polarity sensitivity over time (similarity 0.85)
• Nerve degeneration or central blocking may explain anodic pulse dominance (similarity 0.81)
• Neural degeneration cannot explain why anodic stimulation suits humans but cathodic suits animals (similarity 0.80)
• Anodic stimulation is more effective in human implant users but less effective in animals (similarity 0.80)
• Anodic and cathodic cochlear implant stimulation differ in efficiency between humans and animals (similarity 0.80)
• Polarity effect magnitude is similar across species even though its direction is reversed. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Species differences in final nerve geometry may drive the polarity reversal #expands (0.85)
• Neural degeneration alone does not explain polarity sensitivity differences in cochlear implants #corroborates (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2309
• Neural degeneration over time does not flip cathodic-anodic stimulation efficiency in deafened guinea pigs #corroborates (0.75)