Literature DB >> 24768763

Comparison of auditory responses determined by acoustic stimulation and by mechanical round window stimulation at equivalent stapes velocities.

JangWoo Lee1, KiWoong Seong2, Sang-Heun Lee3, Kyu-Yup Lee4, Jin-Ho Cho5.   

Abstract

Active middle ear implants (AMEIs) have been studied to overcome the limitations of conventional hearing aids such as howling, occlusion, and social discrimination. AMEIs usually drive the oval window (OW) by means of transmitting vibrational force through the ossicles and the vibrational force corresponding to sound is generated from a mechanical actuator. Recently, round window (RW) stimulation using an AMEI such as a floating mass transducer (FMT) to deliver sound to the cochlea has been introduced and hearing improvement in clinical use has been reported. Although previous studies demonstrated that the auditory response to RW stimulation was comparable to a sound-evoked auditory response, few studies have investigated the quantification of the physiologic performance of an AMEI through RW stimulation on the inner ear in vivo. There is no established relationship between the cochlear responses and mechanical stimulation to RW. The aim of this study is to assess the physiologic response in RW stimulation by an AMEI. The transferred energy through the RW to the inner ear could estimate the response corresponding to acoustic stimulation in order to quantify the AMEI output in the ossicular chain or OW stimulation. The parameters of the auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were measured and compared based on stapes velocities similar enough to be regarded as the same for acoustic stimulation to the external auditory canal (EAC) and mechanical stimulation to the RW in an in vivo system. In conclusion, this study showed that the amplitudes and latencies of the ABRs of acoustic and RW stimulation showed significant differences at comparable stapes velocities in an in vivo system. These differences in the ABR amplitudes and latencies reflect different output functions of the cochlea in response to different stimulation pathways. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new method for quantifying the output of the cochlea in the case of RW stimulation.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24768763     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.04.003

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


  6 in total

1.  Difference of auditory brainstem responses by stimulating to round and oval window in animal experiments.

Authors:  Jyung Hyun Lee; Hyo Soon Park; Qun Wei; Myoung Nam Kim; Jin-Ho Cho
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.269

2.  Development of the head, pinnae, and acoustical cues to sound location in a precocial species, the guinea pig (Cavia porcellus).

Authors:  Kelsey L Anbuhl; Victor Benichoux; Nathaniel T Greene; Andrew D Brown; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  The Codacs™ direct acoustic cochlear implant actuator: exploring alternative stimulation sites and their stimulation efficiency.

Authors:  Martin Grossöhmichen; Rolf Salcher; Hans-Heinrich Kreipe; Thomas Lenarz; Hannes Maier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Influence of Piezoelectric Transducer Stimulating Sites on the Performance of Implantable Middle Ear Hearing Devices: A Numerical Analysis.

Authors:  Houguang Liu; Yu Zhao; Jianhua Yang; Zhushi Rao
Journal:  Micromachines (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 2.891

Review 5.  Round Window Stimulation of the Cochlea.

Authors:  Herman A Jenkins; Nathaniel Greene; Daniel J Tollin
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 4.003

6.  Direct Intracochlear Acoustic Stimulation Using a PZT Microactuator.

Authors:  Chuan Luo; Irina Omelchenko; Robert Manson; Carol Robbins; Elizabeth C Oesterle; Guo Zhong Cao; I Y Shen; Clifford R Hume
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 3.293

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.