Literature DB >> 23479187

The polarity sensitivity of the electrically stimulated human auditory nerve measured at the level of the brainstem.

Jaime A Undurraga1, Robert P Carlyon, Jan Wouters, Astrid van Wieringen.   

Abstract

Recent behavioral studies have suggested that the human auditory nerve of cochlear implant (CI) users is mainly excited by the positive (anodic) polarity. Those findings were only obtained using asymmetric pseudomonophasic (PS) pulses where the effect of one phase was measured in the presence of a counteracting phase of opposite polarity, longer duration, and lower amplitude than the former phase. It was assumed that only the short high-amplitude phase was responsible for the excitation. Similarly, it has been shown that electrically evoked compound action potentials could only be obtained in response to the anodic phases of asymmetric pulses. Here, experiment 1 measured electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses to standard symmetric, PS, reversed pseudomonophasic, and reversed pseudomonophasic with inter-phase gap (6 ms) pulses presented for both polarities. Responses were time locked to the short high-amplitude phase of asymmetric pulses and were smaller, but still measurable, when that phase was cathodic than when it was anodic. This provides the first evidence that cathodic stimulation can excite the auditory system of human CI listeners and confirms that this stimulation is nevertheless less effective than for the anodic polarity. A second experiment studied the polarity sensitivity at different intensities by means of a loudness balancing task between pseudomonophasic anodic (PSA) and pseudomonophasic cathodic (PSC) stimuli. Previous studies had demonstrated greater sensitivity to anodic stimulation only for stimuli producing loud percepts. The results showed that PSC stimuli required higher amplitudes than PSA stimuli to reach the same loudness and that this held for current levels ranging from 10 to 100% of the dynamic range.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23479187      PMCID: PMC3642274          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0377-0

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


  86 in total

1.  Comparison of electrically evoked whole-nerve action potential and electrically evoked auditory brainstem response thresholds in nucleus CI24R cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Marcia J Hay-McCutcheon; Carolyn J Brown; Kelly Schmidt Clay; Keely Seyle
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 1.664

2.  A new method for dealing with the stimulus artefact in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements.

Authors:  W Martin C Klop; Aran Hartlooper; Jeroen J Briare; Johan H M Frijns
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 1.494

3.  Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Johan Laneau; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Electrically evoked auditory steady state responses in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Michael Hofmann; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2009-12-22

5.  Evaluating residual background noise in human auditory brain-stem responses.

Authors:  M Don; C Elberling
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Enhancement of neural synchronization in the anteroventral cochlear nucleus. II. Responses in the tuning curve tail.

Authors:  P X Joris; P H Smith; T C Yin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  The antidromic compound action potential of the auditory nerve.

Authors:  M C Brown
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Morphometry of intracellularly labeled neurons of the auditory nerve: correlations with functional properties.

Authors:  M C Liberman; M E Oliver
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  1984-02-20       Impact factor: 3.215

9.  Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; John M Deeks; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-05-20

10.  Time course of efferent fiber and spiral ganglion cell degeneration following complete hair cell loss in the chinchilla.

Authors:  Sandra L McFadden; Dalian Ding; Haiyan Jiang; Richard J Salvi
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2004-01-30       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  26 in total

1.  Effects of Stimulus Polarity and Artifact Reduction Method on the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jenny L Goehring; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2017 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  What can stimulus polarity and interphase gap tell us about auditory nerve function in cochlear-implant recipients?

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sangsook Choi; Erin Glickman
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-12-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The Effect of Stimulus Polarity on the Relation Between Pitch Ranking and ECAP Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Sangsook Choi; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-01-31

4.  Recommendations for Measuring the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Lei Xu; Holly F B Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin D Brown; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner; Angela Pellittieri; William J Riggs
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Polarity Sensitivity as a Potential Correlate of Neural Degeneration in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Quentin Mesnildrey; Frédéric Venail; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-02-04

6.  Estimating health of the implanted cochlea using psychophysical strength-duration functions and electrode configuration.

Authors:  Soha N Garadat; Deborah J Colesa; Donald L Swiderski; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Effect of Stimulus Polarity on Physiological Spread of Excitation in Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Emily R Spitzer; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 1.664

8.  Effect of Increasing Pulse Phase Duration on Neural Responsiveness of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve.

Authors:  Shuman He; Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Xiuhua Chao; William J Riggs; Ruijie Wang; Chloe Vaughan; Jianfen Luo; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.562

9.  The Sensitivity of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve to Amplitude Modulation Cues Declines With Advanced Age.

Authors:  William J Riggs; Chloe Vaughan; Jeffrey Skidmore; Sara Conroy; Angela Pellittieri; Brittney L Carter; Curtis J Stegman; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

10.  The Effect of Pulse Polarity on Neural Response of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency and Children With Normal-Sized Cochlear Nerves.

Authors:  Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Jianfen Luo; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Haibo Wang; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.