William J Parkes1,2, Joshua J Gnanasegaram1,3, Sharon L Cushing1,2, Carmen L McKnight1, Blake C Papsin1,3,2, Karen A Gordon1,3. 1. Archie's Cochlear Implant Laboratory, Department of Otolaryngology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. The Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if vestibular potentials could be elicited with electrical stimulation from cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Vestibular responsiveness to electrical stimulation from cochlear implants was assessed via vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) testing in 53 pediatric and young adult patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants (58%) showed at least one vestibular potential in response to acoustic stimulation; 33 (62%) had an electrically evoked vestibular response. A cervical VEMP (cVEMP) was present in 45 of the 96 tested ears (47%) in response to acoustic stimulation, and in 34 ears (35%) with electrical stimulation. An ocular VEMP (oVEMP) was elicited acoustically in 25 ears (26%) and electrically in 34 (35%) ears. In the ears with absent responses to acoustic stimuli, electrically evoked cVEMPs and oVEMPs were present in 14 (27%) and 18 (25%) ears, respectively. Electric VEMPs demonstrated shorter latencies than acoustic VEMPs (P < .01). Whereas an increased prevalence of VEMPs was seen at high stimulation levels (P < .01), there was no difference between prevalence proportions with basal (electrode 3) or apical (electrode 20) stimulation (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: VEMPs can be elicited with electrical stimulation in a proportion of children with cochlear implants, demonstrating current spread from the cochlea to the vestibular system. The presence of electric VEMPs in acoustically nonresponsive ears, along with the shorter latencies of electrically driven VEMPs, suggests that electrical current can bypass the otoliths and directly stimulate vestibular neural elements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 2016 127:E75-E81, 2017.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine if vestibular potentials could be elicited with electrical stimulation from cochlear implants. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Vestibular responsiveness to electrical stimulation from cochlear implants was assessed via vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP) testing in 53 pediatric and young adult patients. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants (58%) showed at least one vestibular potential in response to acoustic stimulation; 33 (62%) had an electrically evoked vestibular response. A cervical VEMP (cVEMP) was present in 45 of the 96 tested ears (47%) in response to acoustic stimulation, and in 34 ears (35%) with electrical stimulation. An ocular VEMP (oVEMP) was elicited acoustically in 25 ears (26%) and electrically in 34 (35%) ears. In the ears with absent responses to acoustic stimuli, electrically evoked cVEMPs and oVEMPs were present in 14 (27%) and 18 (25%) ears, respectively. Electric VEMPs demonstrated shorter latencies than acoustic VEMPs (P < .01). Whereas an increased prevalence of VEMPs was seen at high stimulation levels (P < .01), there was no difference between prevalence proportions with basal (electrode 3) or apical (electrode 20) stimulation (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: VEMPs can be elicited with electrical stimulation in a proportion of children with cochlear implants, demonstrating current spread from the cochlea to the vestibular system. The presence of electric VEMPs in acoustically nonresponsive ears, along with the shorter latencies of electrically driven VEMPs, suggests that electrical current can bypass the otoliths and directly stimulate vestibular neural elements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 2016 127:E75-E81, 2017.
Authors: Gabrielle R Merchant; Kyli M Schulz; Jessie N Patterson; Denis Fitzpatrick; Kristen L Janky Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2020 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Nils Guinand; Raymond Van de Berg; Samuel Cavuscens; Robert Stokroos; Maurizio Ranieri; Marco Pelizzone; Herman Kingma; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Angélica Pérez Fornos Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Max Gerdsen; Cathérine Jorissen; Daphne Catharina Francisca Pustjens; Janke Roelofke Hof; Vincent Van Rompaey; Raymond Van De Berg; Josine Christine Colette Widdershoven Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.569
Authors: Joshua J Gnanasegaram; William J Parkes; Sharon L Cushing; Carmen L McKnight; Blake C Papsin; Karen A Gordon Journal: Front Integr Neurosci Date: 2016-09-13