Literature DB >> 11124454

Auditory nerve responses to monophasic and biphasic electric stimuli.

C A Miller1, B K Robinson, J T Rubinstein, P J Abbas, C L Runge-Samuelson.   

Abstract

Charge-balanced, biphasic stimulus pulses are commonly used in implantable cochlear prostheses as they can be safely delivered to living tissue. However, monophasic stimuli are more efficient (i.e. producing lower thresholds) and likely provide more spatially selective excitation of nerve fibers. We examined the neural responses to monophasic, 'pseudomonophasic', and biphasic stimuli to better understand the inherent tradeoffs of these stimuli. Using guinea pig and cat animal models, we compared the auditory nerve responses to both 40 micros monophasic and 40 micros/phase biphasic stimuli using both electrically evoked compound action potential and single-fiber recordings. We also made comparisons using a computational model of the feline auditory nerve fiber. In all cases, our stimuli were cathodic monophasic and cathodic-first biphasic pulses. As expected, monophasic stimuli provided lower thresholds relative to biphasic stimuli. They also evoked responses with relatively longer latencies. We also examined responses to charge-balanced biphasic pulses composed of two phases of differing duration (i.e. pseudomonophasic stimuli). The first phase was fixed at 40 micros, while the second phase was systematically varied from 40 to 4000 micros. With a relatively long second phase, we hypothesized that these stimuli would provide some of the beneficial features of monophasic stimuli. Both the gross-potential and single-fiber data confirmed this and indicate that the largest incremental effects of changing the second-phase duration occur for durations less than 500 micros. Consideration of single-fiber data and computer simulations suggest that these results are consistent with the neural membrane acting as a leaky integrator. The computer simulations also suggest that the integrative properties at least partially account for the difference between our monophasic-biphasic results and previously published data. Our results apply to cathodic-leading stimuli; due to differing patterns of membrane depolarization, they may not be applicable to situations using anodic-leading stimuli. Finally, we observed differences between the guinea pig and cat response patterns. Compared to cats, guinea pigs produced smaller monophasic vs. biphasic threshold differences. This interspecies disparity may be due to differences in cochlear anatomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11124454     DOI: 10.1016/s0300-2977(00)00082-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  29 in total

1.  A point process framework for modeling electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Jay T Rubinstein; Eric Shea-Brown
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Neural masking by sub-threshold electric stimuli: animal and computer model results.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Jihwan Woo; Paul J Abbas; Ning Hu; Barbara K Robinson
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-11-16

3.  Examining the auditory nerve fiber response to high rate cochlear implant stimulation: chronic sensorineural hearing loss and facilitation.

Authors:  Leon F Heffer; David J Sly; James B Fallon; Mark W White; Robert K Shepherd; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Electrical excitation of the acoustically sensitive auditory nerve: single-fiber responses to electric pulse trains.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Paul J Abbas; Barbara K Robinson; Kirill V Nourski; Fawen Zhang; Fuh-Cherng Jeng
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-05-16

5.  Penetrating electrode stimulation of the rabbit optic nerve: parameters and effects on evoked cortical potentials.

Authors:  Jingjing Sun; Yao Chen; Xinyu Chai; Qiushi Ren; Liming Li
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-09-08       Impact factor: 3.117

6.  Modeling binaural responses in the auditory brainstem to electric stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  Yoojin Chung; Bertrand Delgutte; H Steven Colburn
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-10-28

7.  Cancellation of nerve excitation by the reversal of nanosecond stimulus polarity and its relevance to the gating time of sodium channels.

Authors:  Maura Casciola; Shu Xiao; Francesca Apollonio; Alessandra Paffi; Micaela Liberti; Claudia Muratori; Andrei G Pakhomov
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 9.261

8.  How electrically evoked compound action potentials in chronically implanted guinea pigs relate to auditory nerve health and electrode impedance.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Deborah J Colesa; Christopher J Buswinka; Andrew M Rabah; Donald L Swiderski; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Asymmetric versus symmetric pulses for cortical microstimulation.

Authors:  Andrew S Koivuniemi; Kevin J Otto
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.802

10.  Detection of acoustic temporal fine structure by cochlear implant listeners: behavioral results and computational modeling.

Authors:  Nikita S Imennov; Jong Ho Won; Ward R Drennan; Elyse Jameyson; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.