Literature DB >> 17008774

Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve.

Andre Morsnowski1, Basile Charasse, Lionel Collet, Matthijs Killian, Joachim Müller-Deile.   

Abstract

Intracochlear recordings in cochlear implant recipients provide access to the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP). ECAP thresholds are potential predictors of speech processor map's threshold and comfortable loudness levels. The auditory nerve's refractory properties can influence these levels due to high-rate stimulation with interpulse intervals within the relative refractory period. Recovery functions were investigated at 84 stimulation sites in 14 Nucleus CI24 recipients using neural response telemetry and a modified forward masking technique. This technique introduces a reference masker-probe interval (MPI). In our study, an appropriate value between 300 and 375 micro s was determined for this reference MPI, and the use of a reference MPI of 300 micro s is suggested for recovery and amplitude growth functions. A median absolute refractory period of about 390 micro s and a median time constant of about 425 micro s were obtained by fitting an exponential model to the data. Hence, the auditory nerve is usually in relative refractory state when standard neural response telemetry forward masking is selected because of its default MPI of 500 micro s. This can bias the measurement of ECAP thresholds. Additionally, the shape of standard forward masking recovery functions was explained by the influence of latency shift of the neural response. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17008774     DOI: 10.1159/000095966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Audiol Neurootol        ISSN: 1420-3030            Impact factor:   1.854


  25 in total

1.  Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sarah A Laurello
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Electrically evoked compound action potential measures for virtual channels versus physical electrodes.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Adam M Goulson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Spontaneous activity of auditory-nerve fibers: insights into stochastic processes at ribbon synapses.

Authors:  Peter Heil; Heinrich Neubauer; Dexter R F Irvine; Mel Brown
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  [Refractory behaviour of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve].

Authors:  A Morsnowski; B Charasse; L Collet; M Killian; J Müller-Deile
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.284

5.  Neural response telemetry in patients with the double-array cochlear implant.

Authors:  Maria Valéria Goffi-Gomez; Carolina F Abdala; Cristina Gomes Ornelas Peralta; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Rubens Vuono de Brito Neto; Ricardo Ferreira Bento
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2009-09-25       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 6.  [Audiologic rehabilitation of patients with cochlear implants].

Authors:  S Hoth; J Müller-Deile
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 1.284

7.  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

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

Authors:  Youssef Adel; Gaston Hilkhuysen; Arnaud Noreña; Yves Cazals; Stéphane Roman; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-21

9.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array.

Authors:  Stefan Brill; Joachim Müller; Rudolf Hagen; Alexander Möltner; Steffi-Johanna Brockmeier; Thomas Stark; Silke Helbig; Jan Maurer; Thomas Zahnert; Clemens Zierhofer; Peter Nopp; Ilona Anderson; Stefan Strahl
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.