OBJECTIVE: The vestibular system provides essential information about balance and spatial orientation via the brain to other sensory and motor systems. Bilateral vestibular loss significantly reduces quality of life, but vestibular implants (VIs) have demonstrated potential to restore lost function. However, optimal electrical stimulation strategies have not yet been identified in patients. In this study, we compared the two most common strategies, pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) and pulse rate modulation (PRM), in patients. APPROACH: Four subjects with a modified cochlear implant including electrodes targeting the peripheral vestibular nerve branches were tested. Charge-equivalent PAM and PRM were applied after adaptation to baseline stimulation. Vestibulo-ocular reflex eye movement responses were recorded to evaluate stimulation efficacy during acute clinical testing sessions. MAIN RESULTS: PAM evoked larger amplitude eye movement responses than PRM. Eye movement response axes for lateral canal stimulation were marginally better aligned with PRM than with PAM. A neural network model was developed for the tested stimulation strategies to provide insights on possible neural mechanisms. This model suggested that PAM would consistently cause a larger ensemble firing rate of neurons and thus larger responses than PRM. SIGNIFICANCE: Due to the larger magnitude of eye movement responses, our findings strongly suggest PAM as the preferred strategy for initial VI modulation.
OBJECTIVE: The vestibular system provides essential information about balance and spatial orientation via the brain to other sensory and motor systems. Bilateral vestibular loss significantly reduces quality of life, but vestibular implants (VIs) have demonstrated potential to restore lost function. However, optimal electrical stimulation strategies have not yet been identified in patients. In this study, we compared the two most common strategies, pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) and pulse rate modulation (PRM), in patients. APPROACH: Four subjects with a modified cochlear implant including electrodes targeting the peripheral vestibular nerve branches were tested. Charge-equivalent PAM and PRM were applied after adaptation to baseline stimulation. Vestibulo-ocular reflex eye movement responses were recorded to evaluate stimulation efficacy during acute clinical testing sessions. MAIN RESULTS: PAM evoked larger amplitude eye movement responses than PRM. Eye movement response axes for lateral canal stimulation were marginally better aligned with PRM than with PAM. A neural network model was developed for the tested stimulation strategies to provide insights on possible neural mechanisms. This model suggested that PAM would consistently cause a larger ensemble firing rate of neurons and thus larger responses than PRM. SIGNIFICANCE: Due to the larger magnitude of eye movement responses, our findings strongly suggest PAM as the preferred strategy for initial VI modulation.
Authors: Michael Handler; Peter P Schier; Karl D Fritscher; Patrik Raudaschl; Lejo Johnson Chacko; Rudolf Glueckert; Rami Saba; Rainer Schubert; Daniel Baumgarten; Christian Baumgartner Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Peter J Boutros; Nicolas S Valentin; Kristin N Hageman; Chenkai Dai; Dale Roberts; Charles C Della Santina Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 2.974
Authors: T A K Nguyen; Samuel Cavuscens; Maurizio Ranieri; Konrad Schwarz; Nils Guinand; Raymond van de Berg; Thomas van den Boogert; Floor Lucieer; Marc van Hoof; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Herman Kingma; Silvestro Micera; Angelica Perez Fornos Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: Raymond van de Berg; Nils Guinand; Maurizio Ranieri; Samuel Cavuscens; T A Khoa Nguyen; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Florence Lucieer; Dmitrii Starkov; Herman Kingma; Marc van Hoof; Angelica Perez-Fornos Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Nils Guinand; Raymond Van de Berg; Samuel Cavuscens; Maurizio Ranieri; Erich Schneider; Floor Lucieer; Herman Kingma; Jean-Philippe Guyot; Angélica Pérez Fornos Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: E C Martin; C Leue; P Delespaul; F Peeters; A M L Janssen; R Lousberg; A Erdkamp; S van de Weijer; J Widdershoven; H Blom; T Bruintjes; A Zwergal; E Grill; N Guinand; A Perez-Fornos; M R van de Berg; J J A Stultiens; H Kingma; R van de Berg Journal: J Neurol Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 4.849