Literature DB >> 1490906

Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation in neonatally deafened cats: effects of intensity and stimulating electrode location.

P A Leake1, R L Snyder, G T Hradek, S J Rebscher.   

Abstract

An earlier study conducted in this laboratory suggested that chronic intracochelear electrical stimulation at moderate current levels can at least partially delay or prevent the retrograde degeneration of primary auditory (spiral ganglion) neurons that otherwise is progressive after neonatal deafness induced by ototoxic drug administration. Increased survival of spiral ganglion neurons was observed within the basal cochlear region near the stimulating biopolar electrode pairs, while in more apical regions there was no significant difference between the stimulated and control cochleas. The mechanisms underlying this maintenance of spiral ganglion neurons induced by chronic electrical stimulation are uncertain, especially since increased neuronal survival was observed over broader sectors of the ganglion than would be expected to be directly activated by the bipolar electrodes and moderate stimulation intensity (6 dB above electrically evoked auditory brainstem response threshold) used. In this report, data are presented from a second series of neonatally deafened and chronically stimulated cats. The parameters for chronic electrical stimulation were manipulated in two simple ways. First, the intensity of the electrical stimulus was reduced from the earlier study, while the duration of chronic stimualtion periods was increased; and secondly, two different intracochlear positions of stimulating electrodes were employed in different experimental groups. Results indicate that elecrical stimulation of the cochlea at an extremely low intensity (2 dB above electrically evoked auditory brainstem response threshold) is sufficient to at least partially prevent or delay ganglion cell degeneration in the deafened cochlea. In addition, data suggest a differential distribution of the maintained or conserved ganglion cells, such that when the stimulating electrode pair was positioned near the base of the cochlea increased ganglion survival in a more basal cochlear sector, while stimulation at a more apical site resulted in increased neuronal survival extending to more apical regions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1490906     DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(92)90172-j

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


  20 in total

1.  Modelling encapsulation tissue around cochlear implant electrodes.

Authors:  T Hanekom
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.602

2.  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

3.  Cochlear implant electrode configuration effects on activation threshold and tonotopic selectivity.

Authors:  Russell L Snyder; John C Middlebrooks; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-10-11       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  CaMKII and CaMKIV mediate distinct prosurvival signaling pathways in response to depolarization in neurons.

Authors:  Jinwoong Bok; Qiong Wang; Jie Huang; Steven H Green
Journal:  Mol Cell Neurosci       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 4.314

5.  Neural ITD Sensitivity and Temporal Coding with Cochlear Implants in an Animal Model of Early-Onset Deafness.

Authors:  Yoojin Chung; Brian D Buechel; Woongsang Sunwoo; Joseph D Wagner; Bertrand Delgutte
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-08

6.  Trophic support of cultured spiral ganglion neurons by depolarization exceeds and is additive with that by neurotrophins or cAMP and requires elevation of [Ca2+]i within a set range.

Authors:  J L Hegarty; A R Kay; S H Green
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Stem cell transplantation for auditory nerve replacement.

Authors:  Richard A Altschuler; K Sue O'Shea; Josef M Miller
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Polypyrrole-coated electrodes for the delivery of charge and neurotrophins to cochlear neurons.

Authors:  Rachael T Richardson; Andrew K Wise; Brianna C Thompson; Brianna O Flynn; Patrick J Atkinson; Nicole J Fretwell; James B Fallon; Gordon G Wallace; Rob K Shepherd; Graeme M Clark; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 12.479

Review 9.  Therapeutic potential of neurotrophins for treatment of hearing loss.

Authors:  W Q Gao
Journal:  Mol Neurobiol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 5.590

10.  Factors influencing neurotrophic effects of electrical stimulation in the deafened developing auditory system.

Authors:  Patricia A Leake; Olga Stakhovskaya; Gary T Hradek; Alexander M Hetherington
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-06-07       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.