Literature DB >> 10464355

Chronic electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant promotes survival of spiral ganglion neurons after neonatal deafness.

P A Leake1, G T Hradek, R L Snyder.   

Abstract

This investigation examined the consequences of neonatal deafness and chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation delivered by a cochlear implant during maturation. Kittens were bilaterally deafened by an ototoxic drug administered daily for 2 weeks immediately after birth. Unilateral electrical stimulation was initiated at 7-10 weeks of age and continued over periods of 22-47 weeks (4 hours/day; 5 days/week). Bipolar intracochlear electrodes delivered one of several different electrical signals designed to be temporally challenging to the central auditory system. Morphometric evaluation of spiral ganglion (SG) cell somata within Rosenthal's canal demonstrated a mean of approximately 50% of normal cell density maintained in the chronically stimulated ears, compared with approximately 30% on the control deafened side. This 20% difference in density was highly significant and was greater than differences reported in earlier studies using 30 pps stimulation delivered by either intracochlear bipolar or round window monopolar electrodes. However, the duration of stimulation was also longer in the present study, so it is unclear to what extent the nature of the temporally challenging stimulation vs. its duration contributed to the marked increase in survival. Measurements of the SG cell somata revealed a pronounced decrease in cell diameter in neonatally deafened cats studied about 1 year after deafening, and an additional decrease after long-term deafness (2.5-6.5 years). Furthermore, in the cochlear regions with the greatest stimulation-induced differences in SG cell density, direct measurements of cross-sectional soma area of the largest cells revealed that cells were significantly larger in the stimulated ears. Thus, in addition to the marked increase in the number of surviving SG cells, larger soma area contributed modestly to the pronounced increase in neural density following chronic electrical stimulation. Copyright 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10464355     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19991004)412:4<543::aid-cne1>3.0.co;2-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Neurol        ISSN: 0021-9967            Impact factor:   3.215


  105 in total

1.  Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin's Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory.

Authors:  Ruth Y Litovsky; Matthew J Goupell; Shelly Godar; Tina Grieco-Calub; Gary L Jones; Soha N Garadat; Smita Agrawal; Alan Kan; Ann Todd; Christi Hess; Sara Misurelli
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  Auditory outcomes following implantation and electrical stimulation of the semicircular canals.

Authors:  Steven M Bierer; Leo Ling; Kaibao Nie; Albert F Fuchs; Chris R S Kaneko; Trey Oxford; Amy L Nowack; Sarah J Shepherd; Jay T Rubinstein; James O Phillips
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Monopolar intracochlear pulse trains selectively activate the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Matthew C Schoenecker; Ben H Bonham; Olga A Stakhovskaya; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-06-22

4.  The effect of cochlear-implant-mediated electrical stimulation on spiral ganglion cells in congenitally deaf white cats.

Authors:  Iris Chen; Charles J Limb; David K Ryugo
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-09-04

5.  Kv7-type channel currents in spiral ganglion neurons: involvement in sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  Ping Lv; Dongguang Wei; Ebenezer N Yamoah
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2010-08-25       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 6.  Development of the auditory system.

Authors:  Ruth Litovsky
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2015

7.  [Cochlear implantation with preservation of residual deep frequency hearing].

Authors:  W Gstöttner; S-M Pok; S Peters; J Kiefer; O Adunka
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.284

8.  Does cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation affect residual hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons?

Authors:  Anne Coco; Stephanie B Epp; James B Fallon; Jin Xu; Rodney E Millard; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Role of electrode placement as a contributor to variability in cochlear implant outcomes.

Authors:  Charles C Finley; Timothy A Holden; Laura K Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Richard A Chole; Gail J Neely; Timothy E Hullar; Margaret W Skinner
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.311

10.  Effects of long-term use of a cochlear implant on the electrically evoked compound action potential.

Authors:  Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Christine P Etlert; Sara O'Brient; Jacob J Oleson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.664

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.