Some cathodic responses decrease as current rises, growing non-monotonically

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Cathodic action potentials may block centrally at high current, explaining polarity effects; Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users; Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275 (+3 more)

Related

• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes (similarity 0.96)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses (similarity 0.95)
• 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 0.93)
• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels (similarity 0.90)
• Cathodic current pulses produce larger neural responses than anodic ones (similarity 0.90)
• Never degeneration of neural peripheral processes may explain human anodic stimulation preference (similarity 0.90)
• Cathodic pulses produce larger cochlear implant responses than anodic pulses across pulse shapes (similarity 0.89)
• 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 0.84)
• Cathodic pulses are more efficient in animals but anodic pulses in humans (similarity 0.83)
• Pulse polarity effects on neural response differ significantly across pulse shapes (similarity 0.83)
• At high current a cathodic pulse can block its own action potentials centrally. (similarity 0.83)
• Cochlear implant growth functions can behave non-monotonically near the top of the dynamic range (similarity 0.83)
• Asymmetry in cochlear implant pulse shapes biases one polarity of stimulation to dominate. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Anodic stimulation exceeds cathodic at suprathreshold levels in human CI users #qualifies (0.85)
• Anodic current outperforms cathodic current in human cochlear implant users at suprathreshold levels #qualifies (0.85) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2275
• Cathodic pulse superiority holds across all four tested pulse shapes #corroborates (0.85)
• Cathodic pulses evoke larger inferior colliculus responses than anodic pulses #corroborates (0.85) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 2272
• Pulse shapes require measurably different current levels to evoke equal neural responses #expands (0.80)