Literature DB >> 30867111

Auditory brainstem stimulation with a conformable microfabricated array elicits responses with tonotopically organized components.

Amélie A Guex1, Ariel Edward Hight2, Shreya Narasimhan2, Nicolas Vachicouras1, Daniel J Lee2, Stéphanie P Lacour1, M Christian Brown3.   

Abstract

Auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) restore hearing to deaf individuals not eligible for cochlear implants. Speech comprehension in ABI users is generally poor compared to that of cochlear implant users, and side effects are common. The poor performance may result from activating broad areas and multiple neuronal populations of the cochlear nucleus, however detailed studies of the responses to surface stimulation of the cochlear nucleus are lacking. A conformable electrode array was microfabricated to fit on the rat's dorsal cochlear nucleus (DCN). It hosts 20 small electrodes (each 100 μm diam.). The array was tested by recording evoked potentials and neural activity along the tonotopic axis of the inferior colliculus (IC). Almost all bipolar electrode pairs elicited responses, in some cases with an even, or relatively constant, pattern of thresholds and supra-threshold measures along the long axis of the array. This pattern suggests that conformable arrays can provide relatively constant excitation along the surface of the DCN and thus might decrease the ABI side effects caused by spread of high current to adjacent structures. We also examined tonotopic patterns of the IC responses. Compared to sound-evoked responses, electrically-evoked response mappings had less tonotopic organization and were broader in width. They became more tonotopic when the evoked activity common to all electrodes and the late phase of response were subtracted out, perhaps because the remaining activity is from tonotopically organized principal cells of the DCN. Responses became less tonotopic when inter-electrode distance was increased from 400 μm to 800 μm but were relatively unaffected by changing to monopolar stimulation. The results illustrate the challenges of using a surface array to present tonotopic cues and improve speech comprehension in humans who use the ABI.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ABI; Auditory brainstem implant; Auditory neuroprosthesis; Electrical stimulation; Microelectrode; Neural stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30867111      PMCID: PMC6519443          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.02.010

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


  50 in total

1.  Twenty-year report of the first auditory brain stem nucleus implant.

Authors:  W F House; W E Hitselberger
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.547

2.  An in vivo investigation of first spike latencies in the inferior colliculus in response to multichannel penetrating auditory brainstem implant stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan J Mauger; Mohit N Shivdasani; Graeme D Rathbone; Rebecca E Argent; Antonio G Paolini
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 5.379

3.  Tonotopic maps obtained from the surface of the dorsal cochlear nucleus of the hamster and rat.

Authors:  J A Kaltenbach; J Lazor
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Projections from auditory cortex contact cells in the cochlear nucleus that project to the inferior colliculus.

Authors:  Brett R Schofield; Diana L Coomes
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Current focusing and steering: modeling, physiology, and psychophysics.

Authors:  Ben H Bonham; Leonid M Litvak
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2008-04-06       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 6.  Progress in restoration of hearing with the auditory brainstem implant.

Authors:  Vittorio Colletti; Robert V Shannon; Marco Carner; Sheila Veronese; Liliana Colletti
Journal:  Prog Brain Res       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.453

7.  Frequency organization of the dorsal cochlear nucleus in cats.

Authors:  G A Spirou; B J May; D D Wright; D K Ryugo
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  1993-03-01       Impact factor: 3.215

8.  3D model of frequency representation in the cochlear nucleus of the CBA/J mouse.

Authors:  Michael A Muniak; Alejandro Rivas; Karen L Montey; Bradford J May; Howard W Francis; David K Ryugo
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 3.215

Review 9.  Systematic Review of Nontumor Pediatric Auditory Brainstem Implant Outcomes.

Authors:  Kimberley S Noij; Elliott D Kozin; Rosh Sethi; Parth V Shah; Alyson B Kaplan; Barbara Herrmann; Aaron Remenschneider; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.497

10.  Audiologic outcomes with the penetrating electrode auditory brainstem implant.

Authors:  Steven R Otto; Robert V Shannon; Eric P Wilkinson; William E Hitselberger; Douglas B McCreery; Jean K Moore; Derald E Brackmann
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparison of Responses to DCN vs. VCN Stimulation in a Mouse Model of the Auditory Brainstem Implant (ABI).

Authors:  Stephen McInturff; Florent-Valéry Coen; Ariel E Hight; Osama Tarabichi; Vivek V Kanumuri; Nicolas Vachicouras; Stéphanie P Lacour; Daniel J Lee; M Christian Brown
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2022-04-05

Review 2.  Clinical and scientific innovations in auditory brainstem implants.

Authors:  Kunal R Shetty; Sarah E Ridge; Vivek Kanumuri; Angela Zhu; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2021-04-06

3.  Measurements of the local evoked potential from the cochlear nucleus in patients with an auditory brainstem implant and its implication to auditory perception and audio processor programming.

Authors:  Lutz Gärtner; Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Büchner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.