Literature DB >> 21605648

Cochlear infrastructure for electrical hearing.

Bryan E Pfingst1, Sara A Bowling, Deborah J Colesa, Soha N Garadat, Yehoash Raphael, Seiji B Shibata, Stefan B Strahl, Gina L Su, Ning Zhou.   

Abstract

Although the cochlear implant is already the world's most successful neural prosthesis, opportunities for further improvement abound. Promising areas of current research include work on improving the biological infrastructure in the implanted cochlea to optimize reception of cochlear implant stimulation and on designing the pattern of electrical stimulation to take maximal advantage of conditions in the implanted cochlea. In this review we summarize what is currently known about conditions in the cochlea of deaf, implanted humans and then review recent work from our animal laboratory investigating the effects of preserving or reinnervating tissues on psychophysical and electrophysiological measures of implant function. Additionally we review work from our human laboratory on optimizing the pattern of electrical stimulation to better utilize strengths in the cochlear infrastructure. Histological studies of human temporal bones from implant users and from people who would have been candidates for implants show a range of pathologic conditions including spiral ganglion cell counts ranging from approximately 2% to 92% of normal and partial hair cell survival in some cases. To duplicate these conditions in a guinea pig model, we use a variety of deafening and implantation procedures as well as post-deafening therapies designed to protect neurons and/or regenerate neurites. Across populations of human patients, relationships between nerve survival and functional measures such as speech have been difficult to demonstrate, possibly due to the numerous subject variables that can affect implant function and the elapsed time between functional measures and postmortem histology. However, psychophysical studies across stimulation sites within individual human subjects suggest that biological conditions near the implanted electrodes contribute significantly to implant function, and this is supported by studies in animal models comparing histological findings to psychophysical and electrophysiological data. Results of these studies support the efforts to improve the biological infrastructure in the implanted ear and guide strategies which optimize stimulation patterns to match patient-specific conditions in the cochlea. Copyright Â
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21605648      PMCID: PMC3208788          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.05.002

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


  48 in total

Review 1.  Effects of chronic stimulation on auditory nerve survival in ototoxically deafened animals.

Authors:  A L Miller
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Across-site variation in detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels for cochlear implants.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Li Xu
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-11-20

3.  Auditory response to intracochlear electric stimuli following furosemide treatment.

Authors:  Ning Hu; Paul J Abbas; Charles A Miller; Barbara K Robinson; Kirill V Nourski; Fuh-Cherng Jeng; Bruce A Abkes; John M Nichols
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Lesions of the organ of Corti.

Authors:  H F SCHUKNECHT
Journal:  Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol       Date:  1953 May-Jun

5.  Effects of cochlear-implant pulse rate and inter-channel timing on channel interactions and thresholds.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans.

Authors:  J B Nadol; J Y Shiao; B J Burgess; D R Ketten; D K Eddington; B J Gantz; I Kos; P Montandon; N J Coker; J T Roland; J K Shallop
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.547

7.  The organization of the cochlear receptor.

Authors:  H Spoendlin
Journal:  Fortschr Hals Nasen Ohrenheilkd       Date:  1966

8.  Auditory cortical images of cochlear-implant stimuli: coding of stimulus channel and current level.

Authors:  John C Middlebrooks; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Protection and regrowth of the auditory nerve after deafness: neurotrophins, antioxidants and depolarization are effective in vivo.

Authors:  Josef M Miller; Amy L Miller; Takahiko Yamagata; Goran Bredberg; Richard A Altschuler
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.854

10.  Ensemble spontaneous activity in the guinea-pig cochlear nerve.

Authors:  G D Searchfield; D J B Muñoz; P R Thorne
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.208

View more
  24 in total

1.  Effect of multi-electrode configuration on sensitivity to interaural timing differences in bilateral cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  Alan Kan; Heath G Jones; Ruth Y Litovsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-04

5.  Photopolymerized micropatterns with high feature frequencies overcome chemorepulsive borders to direct neurite growth.

Authors:  Bradley W Tuft; Linjing Xu; Braden Leigh; Daniel Lee; C Allan Guymon; Marlan R Hansen
Journal:  J Tissue Eng Regen Med       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 3.963

6.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 7.  Emerging Gene Therapies for Genetic Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Hena Ahmed; Olga Shubina-Oleinik; Jeffrey R Holt
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-08-16

Review 8.  Sound strategies for hearing restoration.

Authors:  Gwenaëlle S G Géléoc; Jeffrey R Holt
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 9.  The use of neurotrophin therapy in the inner ear to augment cochlear implantation outcomes.

Authors:  Cameron L Budenz; Bryan E Pfingst; Yehoash Raphael
Journal:  Anat Rec (Hoboken)       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 2.064

10.  Comparisons between detection threshold and loudness perception for individual cochlear implant channels.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Amberly D Nye
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.