Literature DB >> 21389900

A gerbil model of sloping sensorineural hearing loss.

Thomas A Suberman1, Adam P Campbell, Oliver F Adunka, Craig A Buchman, Joseph P Roche, Douglas C Fitzpatrick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the overall project is to develop knowledge about cochlear physiology during cochlear implantation and develop procedures for assessing its status during hearing preservation surgery. As a step toward this goal, for this study, we established an animal model of sloping high frequency sensorineural hearing loss that mimics the hearing condition of candidates for combined electric-acoustic stimulation.
METHODS: Mongolian gerbils were exposed to band-pass noise using various cutoff frequencies, intensities, exposure times, and survival times. Hearing loss was assessed in far-field recording using preexposure and postexposure auditory brainstem responses (ABRs), and in acute, near-field recordings of the cochlear microphonic and compound action potential from an electrode on the round window. Anatomic loss of hair cells was assessed from dissections.
RESULTS: Postexposure ABRs and near-field recordings from the round window revealed sensorineural hearing loss that varied with the overall noise exposure. Loss of hair cells ranged from relatively sparse to large areas of complete absence depending on the noise exposure. Cases with high intensity (120 dB SPL) and long exposure times (3 h) showed sloping patterns of hearing loss with profound high-frequency loss and mild-to-moderate low-frequency loss. These cases showed complete loss of hair cells in the basal cochlea and preserved hair cells in the apical cochlea. The frequencies comprising the slope in the ABRs and the location of the transition zone between preserved and lost hair cells varied according to the cutoff frequency used.
CONCLUSION: We were able to reliably induce sensorineural hearing loss and loss of hair cells in the gerbil that is comparable to candidates for hearing preservation surgery. This model can be used to evaluate the effects of electrode introduction in a system with a hearing condition similar to that in cases of hearing preservation operations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21389900      PMCID: PMC3125469          DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e31821343f5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Otol Neurotol        ISSN: 1531-7129            Impact factor:   2.311


  32 in total

1.  Three-month results with bilateral cochlear implants.

Authors:  Richard S Tyler; Bruce J Gantz; Jay T Rubinstein; Blake S Wilson; Aaron J Parkinson; Abigail Wolaver; John P Preece; Shelley Witt; Mary W Lowder
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Conservation of low-frequency hearing in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Jan Kiefer; Wolfgang Gstoettner; Wolfgang Baumgartner; Stephan Marcel Pok; Jochen Tillein; Qing Ye; Christoph von Ilberg
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 1.494

3.  Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss.

Authors:  C von Ilberg; J Kiefer; J Tillein; T Pfenningdorff; R Hartmann; E Stürzebecher; R Klinke
Journal:  ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.538

4.  Intracochlear recordings of electrophysiological parameters indicating cochlear damage.

Authors:  Oliver F Adunka; Stefan Mlot; Thomas A Suberman; Adam P Campbell; Joshua Surowitz; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Flexible cochlear microendoscopy in the gerbil.

Authors:  Adam P Campbell; Thomas A Suberman; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.325

6.  Degeneration in the cochlea after noise damage: primary versus secondary events.

Authors:  B A Bohne; G W Harding
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-07

7.  Correlation of early auditory potentials and intracochlear electrode insertion properties: an animal model featuring near real-time monitoring.

Authors:  Adam P Campbell; Thomas A Suberman; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.311

Review 8.  Anatomical connections suitable for the direct processing of neuronal information of different modalities via the rodent primary auditory cortex.

Authors:  Eike Budinger; Henning Scheich
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  A new cochlear implant electrode design for preservation of residual hearing: a temporal bone study.

Authors:  Henryk Skarzynski; Robert Podskarbi-Fayette
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.494

10.  Cochlear injuries induced by the combined exposure to noise and styrene.

Authors:  Guang-Di Chen; Donald Henderson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  6 in total

1.  Electrophysiological properties of cochlear implantation in the gerbil using a flexible array.

Authors:  Christine DeMason; Baishakhi Choudhury; Faisal Ahmad; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Jacob Wang; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Detection of intracochlear damage with cochlear implantation in a gerbil model of hearing loss.

Authors:  Baishakhi Choudhury; Oliver Franz Adunka; Christine E Demason; Faisal I Ahmad; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Detection of intracochlear damage during cochlear implant electrode insertion using extracochlear measurements in the gerbil.

Authors:  Faisal I Ahmad; Baishakhi Choudhury; Christine E De Mason; Oliver F Adunka; Charles C Finley; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Electrophysiologic consequences of flexible electrode insertions in gerbils with noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  Baishakhi Choudhury; Oliver Franz Adunka; Omar Awan; John Maxwell Pike; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Distinguishing hair cell from neural potentials recorded at the round window.

Authors:  Mathieu Forgues; Heather A Koehn; Askia K Dunnon; Stephen H Pulver; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-10-16       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Compression and amplification algorithms in hearing aids impair the selectivity of neural responses to speech.

Authors:  Alex G Armstrong; Chi Chung Lam; Shievanie Sabesan; Nicholas A Lesica
Journal:  Nat Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 29.234

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.