Literature DB >> 29307495

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

Michelle L Hughes1, Sangsook Choi2, Erin Glickman2.   

Abstract

Modeling studies suggest that differences in neural responses between polarities might reflect underlying neural health. Specifically, large differences in electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) amplitudes and amplitude-growth-function (AGF) slopes between polarities might reflect poorer peripheral neural health, whereas more similar eCAP responses between polarities might reflect better neural health. The interphase gap (IPG) has also been shown to relate to neural survival in animal studies. Specifically, healthy neurons exhibit larger eCAP amplitudes, lower thresholds, and steeper AGF slopes for increasing IPGs. In ears with poorer neural survival, these changes in neural responses are generally less apparent with increasing IPG. The primary goal of this study was to examine the combined effects of stimulus polarity and IPG within and across subjects to determine whether both measures represent similar underlying mechanisms related to neural health. With the exception of one measure in one group of subjects, results showed that polarity and IPG effects were generally not correlated in a systematic or predictable way. This suggests that these two effects might represent somewhat different aspects of neural health, such as differences in site of excitation versus integrative membrane characteristics, for example. Overall, the results from this study suggest that the underlying mechanisms that contribute to polarity and IPG effects in human CI recipients might be difficult to determine from animal models that do not exhibit the same anatomy, variance in etiology, electrode placement, and duration of deafness as humans.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; Electrically evoked compound action potential; Interphase gap; Polarity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29307495      PMCID: PMC5809247          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2017.12.015

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


  25 in total

1.  Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites.

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  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

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

Authors:  Jaime A Undurraga; Robert P Carlyon; Jan Wouters; Astrid van Wieringen
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-03-12

4.  Auditory-nerve responses to varied inter-phase gap and phase duration of the electric pulse stimulus as predictors for neuronal degeneration.

Authors:  Dyan Ramekers; Huib Versnel; Stefan B Strahl; Emma M Smeets; Sjaak F L Klis; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-28

5.  Histopathology of cochlear implants in humans.

Authors:  J B Nadol; J Y Shiao; B J Burgess; D R Ketten; D K Eddington; B J Gantz; I Kos; P Montandon; N J Coker; J T Roland; J K Shallop
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 1.547

6.  Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance.

Authors:  Jose N Fayad; Fred H Linthicum
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Effects of Pulse Shape and Polarity on Sensitivity to Cochlear Implant Stimulation: A Chronic Study in Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Olivier Macherey; Yves Cazals
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.622

8.  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

9.  A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users.

Authors:  M L Hughes; K R Vander Werff; C J Brown; P J Abbas; D M Kelsay; H F Teagle; M W Lowder
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The relationship between electrically evoked compound action potential and speech perception: a study in cochlear implant users with short electrode array.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown; Christine P Etler; Sara O'Brien; Lee-Suk Kim
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  24 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

4.  Effects of Electrode Location on Estimates of Neural Health in Humans with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Timothy A Holden; Teresa A Zwolan; H Alexander Arts; Jill B Firszt; Christopher J Buswinka; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-04-27

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

Authors:  Shuman He; Lei Xu; Jeffrey Skidmore; Xiuhua Chao; Fuh-Cherng Jeng; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Haibo Wang
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Changes in the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential over time After Implantation and Subsequent Deafening in Guinea Pigs.

Authors:  Dyan Ramekers; Heval Benav; Sjaak F L Klis; Huib Versnel
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-08-10

8.  Residual voltage as an ad-hoc indicator of electrode damage in biphasic electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Ashwati Krishnan; Mats Forssell; Zhanhong Du; X Tracy Cui; Gary K Fedder; Shawn K Kelly
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Pitch perception is more robust to interference and better resolved when provided by pulse rate than by modulation frequency of cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Raymond L Goldsworthy; Andres Camarena; Susan R S Bissmeyer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-07-24       Impact factor: 3.672

10.  A Broadly Applicable Method for Characterizing the Slope of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Amplitude Growth Function.

Authors:  Jeffrey Skidmore; Dyan Ramekers; Deborah J Colesa; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.