Abstract:Electrical stimulation of auditory nerve fibers using cochlear implants (CI) shows psychophysical forward masking (pFM) up to several hundreds of milliseconds. By contrast, recovery of electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAPs) from forward masking (eFM) was shown to be more rapid, with time constants no greater than a few milliseconds. These discrepancies suggested two main contributors to pFM: a rapid-recovery process due to refractory properties of the auditory nerve and a slow-recovery process arising from more central structures. In the present study, we investigate whether the use of different maskers between eCAP and psychophysical measures, specifically single-pulse versus pulse train maskers, may have been a source of confound.In experiment 1, we measured eFM using the following: a single-pulse masker, a 300-ms low-rate pulse train masker (LTM, 250 pps), and a 300-ms high-rate pulse train masker (HTM, 5000 pps). The maskers were presented either at same physical current (Φ) or at same perceptual (Ψ) level corresponding to comfortable loudness. Responses to a single-pulse probe were measured for masker-probe intervals ranging from 1 to 512 ms. Recovery from masking was much slower for pulse trains than for the single-pulse masker. When presented at Φ level, HTM produced more and longer-lasting masking than LTM. However, results were inconsistent when LTM and HTM were compared at Ψ level. In experiment 2, masked detection thresholds of single-pulse probes were measured using the same pulse train masker conditions. In line with our eFM findings, masked thresholds for HTM were higher than those for LTM at Φ level. However, the opposite result was found when the pulse trains were presented at Ψ level.Our results confirm the presence of slow-recovery phenomena at the level of the auditory nerve in CI users, as previously shown in animal studies. Inconsistencies between eFM and pFM results, despite using the same masking conditions, further underline the importance of comparing electrophysiological and psychophysical measures with identical stimulation paradigms.

The Time Course of Psychophysical End-Stopping.

Spatial-frequency and orientation tuning in psychophysical end-stopping.

End Stopping and Length Tuning in Psychophysical Spatial Filters

Psychophysical End-stopping Associated with Line Targets

Cortical end-stopped perceptive fields: evidence from dichoptic and amblyopic studies.

Processing speed in the cerebral cortex and the neurophysiology of visual masking.

Sequential grouping modulates the effect of non-simultaneous masking on auditory intensity resolution

Understanding the PD and the N2pc: Modeling the Neural Mechanisms Underlying Spatial Attention Shifts

Spatial Facilitation Predicted with End-Stopped Spatial Filters

Forward Masking in Cochlear Implant Users: Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Data Using Pulse Train Maskers

Evidence for proactive and retroactive temporal pattern analysis in simultaneous maskinga)

The Neurophysiology of Backward Visual Masking: Information Analysis

Investigating the role of the foveal cortex in peripheral object discrimination

The Central-Peripheral Dichotomy and Metacontrast Masking

Frequency-specific and periodic masking of peripheral characters by delayed foveal input

The Fastest Saccadic Responses Escape Visual Masking

Attentional Modulation of the Early Cortical Representation of Speech Signals in Informational or Energetic Masking

Attentional load leads to distinct changes in early and late cortical processing of target visibility under visual masking

The Effects of Attention on the Syllable-Induced Prepulse Inhibition of the Startle Reflex and Cortical EEG Responses against Energetic or Informational Masking in Humans

Spatial Scaling of End-stopped Perceptive Fields: Differences in Neural Bases of End-zones, Flanks and Centers

Examining motor evidence for the pause-then-cancel model of action-stopping: Insights from motor system physiology