Literature DB >> 19902297

Effects of hearing preservation on psychophysical responses to cochlear implant stimulation.

Stephen Y Kang1, Deborah J Colesa, Donald L Swiderski, Gina L Su, Yehoash Raphael, Bryan E Pfingst.   

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that residual acoustic hearing supplements cochlear implant function to improve speech recognition in noise as well as perception of music. The current study had two primary objectives. First, we sought to determine how cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation over a time period of 14 to 21 months influence cochlear structures such as hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons. Second, we sought to investigate whether the structures that provide acoustic hearing also affect the perception of electrical stimulation. We compared psychophysical responses to cochlear implant stimulation in two groups of adult guinea pigs. Group I (11 animals) received a cochlear implant in a previously untreated ear, while group II (ten animals) received a cochlear implant in an ear that had been previously infused with neomycin to destroy hearing. Psychophysical thresholds were measured in response to pulse-train and sinusoidal stimuli. Histological analysis of all group I animals and a subset of group II animals was performed. Nine of the 11 group I animals showed survival of the organ of Corti and spiral ganglion neurons adjacent to the electrode array. All group I animals showed survival of these elements in regions apical to the electrode array. Group II animals that were examined histologically showed complete loss of the organ of Corti in regions adjacent and apical to the electrode array and severe spiral ganglion neuron loss, consistent with previous reports for neomycin-treated ears. Behaviorally, group II animals had significantly lower thresholds than group I animals in response to 100 Hz sinusoidal stimuli. However, group I animals had significantly lower thresholds than group II animals in response to pulse-train stimuli (0.02 ms/phase; 156 to 5,000 pps). Additionally, the two groups showed distinct threshold versus pulse rate functions. We hypothesize that the differences in detection thresholds between groups are caused by the electrical activation of the hair cells in group I animals and/or differences between groups in the condition of the spiral ganglion neurons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19902297      PMCID: PMC2862914          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-009-0194-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  57 in total

1.  Cochlear pathology following chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I: Normal hearing kittens.

Authors:  D Ni; R K Shepherd; H L Seldon; S A Xu; G M Clark; R E Millard
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Changes over time in thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea.

Authors:  B E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Electromotile hearing: evidence from basilar membrane motion and otoacoustic emissions.

Authors:  A L Nuttall; T Ren
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  The future of cochlear implants.

Authors:  B S Wilson
Journal:  Br J Audiol       Date:  1997-08

5.  Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status.

Authors:  R K Shepherd; E Javel
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  A model for long-term intracochlear administration of pharmacologic agents.

Authors:  E Davies; H B Gladstone; H Williams; G Hradek; S B Shah; R A Schindler
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1994-11

7.  Hair cell mediated responses of the auditory nerve to sinusoidal electrical stimulation of the cochlea in the cat.

Authors:  K I McAnally; G M Clark; J Syka
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 8.  A model of electrical excitation of the mammalian auditory-nerve neuron.

Authors:  J Colombo; C W Parkins
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1987-12-31       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study.

Authors:  J Xu; R K Shepherd; R E Millard; G M Clark
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Auditory-nerve single-neuron thresholds to electrical stimulation from scala tympani electrodes.

Authors:  C W Parkins; J Colombo
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1987-12-31       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  41 in total

1.  Detection of pulse trains in the electrically stimulated cochlea: effects of cochlear health.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Deborah J Colesa; Sheena Hembrador; Stephen Y Kang; John C Middlebrooks; Yehoash Raphael; Gina L Su
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Future approaches for inner ear protection and repair.

Authors:  Seiji B Shibata; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 3.  Voice emotion perception and production in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  N T Jiam; M Caldwell; M L Deroche; M Chatterjee; C J Limb
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Psychophysically based site selection coupled with dichotic stimulation improves speech recognition in noise with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 6.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  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

8.  Recovery from forward masking in cochlear implant listeners depends on stimulation mode, level, and electrode location.

Authors:  Monita Chatterjee; Aditya M Kulkarni
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to spatial selectivity.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 10.  Outlook and future of inner ear therapy.

Authors:  Jenna Devare; Samuel Gubbels; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.