Literature DB >> 21540098

An improved cochlear implant electrode array for use in experimental studies.

Robert Shepherd1, Kristien Verhoeven, Jin Xu, Frank Risi, James Fallon, Andrew Wise.   

Abstract

Experimental studies play an important role in establishing the safety and efficacy of cochlear implants and they continue to provide insight into a new generation of electrode arrays and stimulation strategies. One drawback has been the limited depth of insertion of an electrode array in experimental animals. We compared the insertion depth and trauma associated with the insertion of Cochlear Ltd's Hybrid-L (HL) array with a standard 8 ring array in cat cochleae. Both arrays were inserted into cadaver cochleae and an X-ray recorded their anatomical location. The implanted cochlea was serially sectioned and photographed at 300 μm intervals for evidence of electrode insertion trauma. Subsequently two cats were chronically implanted with HL arrays and electrically-evoked potentials recorded over a three month period. Mean insertion depth for the HL arrays was 334.8° (SD = 21°; n = 4) versus 175.5° (SD = 6°; n = 2) for the standard array. This relates to ∼10.5 mm and 6 mm respectively. A similar insertion depth was measured in a chronically implanted animal with an HL array. Histology from each cadaver cochleae showed that the electrode array was always located in the scala tympani; there was no evidence of electrode insertion trauma to the basilar membrane, the osseous spiral lamina or the spiral ligament. Finally, evoked potential data from the chronically implanted animals exhibited significantly lower thresholds compared with animals implanted with a standard 8 ring array, with electrical thresholds remaining stable over a three-month observation period. Cochlear Ltd's HL electrode array can be safely inserted ∼50% of the length of the cat scala tympani, placing the tip of the array close to the 4 kHz place. This insertion depth is considerably greater than is routinely achieved using a standard 8-ring electrode array (∼12 kHz place). The HL array evokes low thresholds that remain stable over three months of implantation. This electrode array has potential application in a broad area of cochlear implant related research.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21540098      PMCID: PMC3443690          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.03.017

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


  37 in total

1.  Comparison of electrode position in the human cochlea using various perimodiolar electrode arrays.

Authors:  M Tykocinski; L T Cohen; B C Pyman; T Roland; C Treaba; J Palamara; M C Dahm; R K Shepherd; J Xu; R S Cowan; N L Cohen; G M Clark
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  2000-03

2.  The role of radiographic phase-contrast imaging in the development of intracochlear electrode arrays.

Authors:  J Xu; A W Stevenson; D Gao; M Tykocinski; D Lawrence; S W Wilkins; G M Clark; E Saunders; R S Cowan
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Plasticity in central representations in the inferior colliculus induced by chronic single- vs. two-channel electrical stimulation by a cochlear implant after neonatal deafness.

Authors:  P A Leake; R L Snyder; S J Rebscher; C M Moore; M Vollmer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Focused intracochlear electric stimulation with phased array channels.

Authors:  Chris van den Honert; David C Kelsall
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The cochlear frequency map for the cat: labeling auditory-nerve fibers of known characteristic frequency.

Authors:  M C Liberman
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Response of the primary auditory cortex to electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve in the congenitally deaf white cat.

Authors:  R Hartmann; R K Shepherd; S Heid; R Klinke
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Hearing after congenital deafness: central auditory plasticity and sensory deprivation.

Authors:  A Kral; R Hartmann; J Tillein; S Heid; R Klinke
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Functional responses from guinea pigs with cochlear implants. I. Electrophysiological and psychophysical measures.

Authors:  C A Miller; K E Woodruff; B E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Design and fabrication of multichannel cochlear implants for animal research.

Authors:  Stephen J Rebscher; Alexander M Hetherington; Russell L Snyder; Patricia A Leake; Ben H Bonham
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 2.390

10.  Cochlear implant use following neonatal deafness influences the cochleotopic organization of the primary auditory cortex in cats.

Authors:  James B Fallon; Dexter R F Irvine; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 3.215

View more
  12 in total

1.  Effect of current focusing on the sensitivity of inferior colliculus neurons to amplitude-modulated stimulation.

Authors:  Shefin S George; Mohit N Shivdasani; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Insertion trauma of a cochlear implant electrode array with Nitinol inlay.

Authors:  Thomas S Rau; Lenka Harbach; Nick Pawsey; Marcel Kluge; Peter Erfurt; Thomas Lenarz; Omid Majdani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  A partial hearing animal model for chronic electro-acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  S Irving; A K Wise; R E Millard; R K Shepherd; J B Fallon
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-06-12       Impact factor: 5.379

4.  Evaluation of focused multipolar stimulation for cochlear implants: a preclinical safety study.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Andrew K Wise; Ya Lang Enke; Paul M Carter; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.379

5.  Insertion forces and intracochlear trauma in temporal bone specimens implanted with a straight atraumatic electrode array.

Authors:  Marjan Mirsalehi; Thomas S Rau; Lenka Harbach; Silke Hügl; Saleh Mohebbi; Thomas Lenarz; Omid Majdani
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-25       Impact factor: 2.503

6.  Second spatial derivative analysis of cortical surface potentials recorded in cat primary auditory cortex using thin film surface arrays: Comparisons with multi-unit data.

Authors:  James B Fallon; Sam Irving; Satinderpall S Pannu; Angela C Tooker; Andrew K Wise; Robert K Shepherd; Dexter R F Irvine
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  Cochlear Implant Electrode Array From Partial to Full Insertion in Non-Human Primate Model.

Authors:  Raquel Manrique-Huarte; Diego Calavia; Maria Antonia Gallego; Manuel Manrique
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.017

8.  Behavioral frequency discrimination ability of partially deafened cats using cochlear implants.

Authors:  Yuri B Benovitski; Peter J Blamey; Graeme D Rathbone; James B Fallon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-07-05       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Temporal bone characterization and cochlear implant feasibility in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).

Authors:  Luke A Johnson; Charles C Della Santina; Xiaoqin Wang
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation at high charge densities results in platinum dissolution but not neural loss or functional changes in vivo.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Paul M Carter; Ya Lang Enke; Andrew K Wise; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 5.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.