Literature DB >> 15567605

Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials.

Charles A Miller1, Paul J Abbas, Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon, Barbara K Robinson, Kirill V Nourski, Fuh-Cherng Jeng.   

Abstract

With experimental animals, the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) can be recorded from multiple sites (e.g., round window, intracranial and intracochlear sites). However, human ECAPs are typically recorded from intracochlear electrodes of the implanted array. To bridge this difference, we obtained ECAPs from cats using both intracochlear and nerve-trunk recording sites. We also sought to determine how recording the site influences the acquired evoked potential and how those differences may provide insight into basic excitation properties. In the main experiment, ECAPs were recorded from four acutely deafened cats after implanting a Nucleus-style banded electrode array. Potentials were recorded from an electrode positioned on the nerve trunk and an intracochlear electrode. We manipulated stimulus level, electrode configuration (monopolar vs bipolar) and stimulus polarity, variables that influence the site of excitation. Intracochlear ECAPs were found to be an order of magnitude greater than those obtained with the nerve-trunk electrode. Also, compared with the nerve-trunk potentials, the intracochlear ECAPs more closely resembled those obtained from humans in that latencies were shorter and the waveform morphology was typically biphasic (a negative peak followed by a positive peak). With anodic monophasic stimuli, the ECAP had a unique positive-to-negative morphology which we attributed to antidromic action potentials resulting from a relatively central site of excitation. We also collected intracochlear ECAPs from twenty Nucleus 24 implant users. Compared with the feline ECAPs, the human potentials had smaller amplitudes and longer latencies. It is not clear what underlies these differences, although several factors are considered.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15567605     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2004.07.005

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


  20 in total

1.  Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics.

Authors:  Ben H Bonham; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sangsook Choi; Erin Glickman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Effects of stimulus level and rate on psychophysical thresholds for interleaved pulse trains in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Kendra K Schmid
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The polarity sensitivity of the electrically stimulated human auditory nerve measured at the level of the brainstem.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Robert P Carlyon; Jan Wouters; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-03-12

5.  Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival.

Authors:  Pavel Prado-Guitierrez; Leonie M Fewster; John M Heasman; Colette M McKay; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Exploring the Source of Neural Responses of Different Latencies Obtained from Different Recording Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Akinori Kashio; Viral D Tejani; Rachel A Scheperle; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 1.854

7.  Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-05-20

8.  Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Robert P Carlyon; Astrid van Wieringen; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-02-21

9.  Impact of morphometry, myelinization and synaptic current strength on spike conduction in human and cat spiral ganglion neurons.

Authors:  Frank Rattay; Thomas Potrusil; Cornelia Wenger; Andrew K Wise; Rudolf Glueckert; Anneliese Schrott-Fischer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Forward-masking patterns produced by symmetric and asymmetric pulse shapes in electric hearing.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Ingeborg Dhooge; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 1.840

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.