Literature DB >> 19838117

Predicting auditory nerve survival using the compound action potential.

Brian R Earl1, Mark E Chertoff.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Advances in cochlear hair-cell regeneration, neural regeneration, and genetic therapy encourage continued development of diagnostic tests that can accurately specify the appropriate target within the cochlea and auditory nerve for delivery of therapeutic agents. In this study, we test the hypothesis that the morphology of the acoustically evoked compound action potential (CAP) may reflect the condition of the auditory nerve in individuals with sensorineural hearing loss.
DESIGN: CAPs to tone burst stimuli at octave frequencies from 1 to 16 kHz were recorded at low- to high-stimulus levels from sedated Mongolian gerbils with partial lesions of the auditory nerve (n = 10). Distortion-product otoacoustic emissions were measured to ensure preservation of normal outer hair-cell function. CAPs were analyzed with conventional measures of N1 latency and amplitude and by fitting the CAPs with a mathematical model that includes a parameter (N) representing the number of nerve fibers contributing to the CAP and a parameter (f) representing the oscillation frequency of the CAP waveform. Nerve fiber density and percent normal nerve area were estimated from cross-sections of the auditory nerve bundle.
RESULTS: Despite substantial lesions in the auditory nerve, CAP thresholds remained within normal or were only moderately elevated and were not correlated with histological measures of nerve fiber density and normal nerve area. At high-stimulus levels, the model parameter N was strongly correlated with nerve fiber density for three of the five test frequencies and with normal nerve area for all five test frequencies. Correlations between N1 amplitude measures at high-stimulus levels and our histological measures were also significant for the majority of test frequencies, but they were generally weaker than the correlations for the model parameter N. The model parameter f, at low- and high-stimulus levels, was also positively correlated with measures of normal nerve area.
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous findings, physiological measures of threshold were not correlated with partial lesions of the auditory nerve. The model parameter N at high-stimulus levels was strongly correlated with normal nerve area suggesting, that it is a good predictor of auditory nerve survival. The model parameter N also seemed to be a better predictor of the condition of the auditory nerve than the conventional measure of N1 amplitude. Because the model parameter f was correlated with normal nerve area at low- and high-stimulus levels, it may provide information on the functional status of the auditory nerve.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19838117     DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ba748c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  14 in total

1.  Hair cell and neural contributions to the cochlear summating potential.

Authors:  Andrew K Pappa; Kendall A Hutson; William C Scott; J David Wilson; Kevin E Fox; Maheer M Masood; Christopher K Giardina; Stephen H Pulver; Gilberto D Grana; Charles Askew; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Predicting the location of missing outer hair cells using the electrical signal recorded at the round window.

Authors:  Mark E Chertoff; Brian R Earl; Francisco J Diaz; Janna L Sorensen; Megan L A Thomas; Aryn M Kamerer; Marcello Peppi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The Compound Action Potential in Subjects Receiving a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  William C Scott; Christopher K Giardina; Andrew K Pappa; Tatyana E Fontenot; Meredith L Anderson; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Effects of Electrode Location on Estimates of Neural Health in Humans with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Timothy A Holden; Teresa A Zwolan; H Alexander Arts; Jill B Firszt; Christopher J Buswinka; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-04-27

5.  Auditory Brainstem Response Altered in Humans With Noise Exposure Despite Normal Outer Hair Cell Function.

Authors:  Naomi F Bramhall; Dawn Konrad-Martin; Garnett P McMillan; Susan E Griest
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Auditory function in normal-hearing, noise-exposed human ears.

Authors:  Greta C Stamper; Tiffany A Johnson
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Mapping auditory nerve firing density using high-level compound action potentials and high-pass noise masking.

Authors:  Brian R Earl; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Tinnitus and Auditory Perception After a History of Noise Exposure: Relationship to Auditory Brainstem Response Measures.

Authors:  Naomi F Bramhall; Dawn Konrad-Martin; Garnett P McMillan
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Reliability of Measures of N1 Peak Amplitude of the Compound Action Potential in Younger and Older Adults.

Authors:  Carolyn M McClaskey; James W Dias; Judy R Dubno; Kelly C Harris
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Complementary metrics of human auditory nerve function derived from compound action potentials.

Authors:  Kelly C Harris; Kenneth I Vaden; Carolyn M McClaskey; James W Dias; Judy R Dubno
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.