Literature DB >> 22280596

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

Brian R Earl1, Mark E Chertoff.   

Abstract

Future implementation of regenerative treatments for sensorineural hearing loss may be hindered by the lack of diagnostic tools that specify the target(s) within the cochlea and auditory nerve for delivery of therapeutic agents. Recent research has indicated that the amplitude of high-level compound action potentials (CAPs) is a good predictor of overall auditory nerve survival, but does not pinpoint the location of neural damage. A location-specific estimate of nerve pathology may be possible by using a masking paradigm and high-level CAPs to map auditory nerve firing density throughout the cochlea. This initial study in gerbil utilized a high-pass masking paradigm to determine normative ranges for CAP-derived neural firing density functions using broadband chirp stimuli and low-frequency tonebursts, and to determine if cochlear outer hair cell (OHC) pathology alters the distribution of neural firing in the cochlea. Neural firing distributions for moderate-intensity (60 dB pSPL) chirps were affected by OHC pathology whereas those derived with high-level (90 dB pSPL) chirps were not. These results suggest that CAP-derived neural firing distributions for high-level chirps may provide an estimate of auditory nerve survival that is independent of OHC pathology.
© 2012 Acoustical Society of America.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22280596      PMCID: PMC4073701          DOI: 10.1121/1.3664052

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  39 in total

1.  Basilar membrane vibrations near the round window of the gerbil cochlea.

Authors:  Edward H Overstreet; Andrei N Temchin; Mario A Ruggero
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2002-02-27

2.  Auditory brain stem responses evoked by different chirps based on different delay models.

Authors:  Mario Cebulla; Claus Elberling
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.664

3.  Variable effects of click polarity on auditory brain-stem response latencies: analyses of narrow-band ABRs suggest possible explanations.

Authors:  M Don; A J Vermiglio; C W Ponton; J J Eggermont; A Masuda
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Click- and chirp-evoked human compound action potentials.

Authors:  Mark Chertoff; Jeffery Lichtenhan; Marie Willis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Dose-related vestibular and cochlear effects of transtympanic gentamicin.

Authors:  H H Wanamaker; L Gruenwald; K J Damm; Y Ogata; N Slepecky
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-03

6.  Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after "temporary" noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  Sharon G Kujawa; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Estimation of surviving spiral ganglion cells in the deaf rat using the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response.

Authors:  R D Hall
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Effect of central depressants on the acoustic middle ear reflex in rabbit. A method for quantitative measurements of drug effect on the CNS.

Authors:  E Borg; A R Moller
Journal:  Acta Physiol Scand       Date:  1975-07

9.  Predicting auditory nerve survival using the compound action potential.

Authors:  Brian R Earl; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The influence of noise exposure on the parameters of a convolution model of the compound action potential.

Authors:  M E Chertoff; J T Lichtenhan; B M Tourtillott; K S Esau
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.482

View more
  9 in total

1.  An analytic approach to identifying the sources of the low-frequency round window cochlear response.

Authors:  Aryn M Kamerer; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Neural Processing of Acoustic and Electric Interaural Time Differences in Normal-Hearing Gerbils.

Authors:  Maike Vollmer
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 6.167

3.  Analysis of the cochlear microphonic to a low-frequency tone embedded in filtered noise.

Authors:  Mark E Chertoff; Brian R Earl; Francisco J Diaz; Janna L Sorensen
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  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

5.  Optimizing non-invasive functional markers for cochlear deafferentation based on electrocochleography and auditory brainstem responses.

Authors:  Kelly C Harris; Jianxin Bao
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-04       Impact factor: 2.482

6.  Drug delivery into the cochlear apex: Improved control to sequentially affect finely spaced regions along the entire length of the cochlear spiral.

Authors:  J T Lichtenhan; J Hartsock; J R Dornhoffer; K M Donovan; A N Salt
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 2.390

7.  The potential use of low-frequency tones to locate regions of outer hair cell loss.

Authors:  Aryn M Kamerer; Francisco J Diaz; Marcello Peppi; Mark E Chertoff
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 8.  On the Etiology of Listening Difficulties in Noise Despite Clinically Normal Audiograms.

Authors:  Martin Pienkowski
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Conductive hearing loss during development does not appreciably alter the sharpness of cochlear tuning.

Authors:  Yi Ye; Antje Ihlefeld; Merri J Rosen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.