Literature DB >> 31934787

Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.

Kelly N Jahn1,2, Molly D Bergan3, Julie G Arenberg1,2.   

Abstract

Purpose The goal of this study was to evaluate differences in the electrode-neuron interface as a function of hearing loss etiology in pediatric cochlear implant (CI) listeners with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) syndrome and in those with autosomal recessive connexin-26 mutations (DFNB1). Method Fifteen implanted ears (9 participants, 5 ears with EVA, 10 ears with DFNB1) were assessed. Single-channel auditory detection thresholds were measured using broad and spatially focused electrode configurations (steered quadrupolar; focusing coefficients = 0 and 0.9). Cochlear resistivity estimates were obtained via electrode impedances and electrical field imaging. Between-group differences were evaluated using linear mixed-effects models. Results Children with EVA had significantly higher auditory detection thresholds than children with DFNB1, irrespective of electrode configuration. Between-group differences in thresholds were more pronounced on apical electrodes than on basal electrodes. In the apex, electrode impedances and electrical field imaging values were higher for children with EVA than for those with DFNB1. Conclusions The electrode-neuron interface differs between pediatric CI listeners with DFNB1 and those with EVA. It is possible that optimal clinical interventions may depend, in part, on hearing loss etiology. Future investigations with large samples should investigate individualized CI programming strategies for listeners with EVA and DFNB1.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31934787      PMCID: PMC7229779          DOI: 10.1044/2019_AJA-19-00054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Audiol        ISSN: 1059-0889            Impact factor:   1.493


  54 in total

1.  Identification of the impedance model of an implanted cochlear prosthesis from intracochlear potential measurements.

Authors:  Filiep J Vanpoucke; Andrzej J Zarowski; Stefaan A Peeters
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  Normal modiolus: CT appearance in patients with a large vestibular aqueduct.

Authors:  M M Lemmerling; A A Mancuso; P J Antonelli; P S Kubilis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Implantation of the malformed cochlea.

Authors:  D J Eisenman; C Ashbaugh; T A Zwolan; H A Arts; S A Telian
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Changes in programming over time in postmeningitis cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Adrien A Eshraghi; Fred F Telischi; Annelle V Hodges; Onur Odabasi; Thomas J Balkany
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.497

5.  Correlation of CT, MR, and Histopathology in Incomplete Partition-II Cochlear Anomaly.

Authors:  Katherine J Leung; Alicia M Quesnel; Amy F Juliano; Hugh D Curtin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.311

6.  Responsiveness of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; Bahar S Shahsavarani; Tyler C McFayden; Haibo Wang; Katherine E Gill; Lei Xu; Xiuhua Chao; Jianfen Luo; Ruijie Wang; Nancy He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  The Effects of GJB2 or SLC26A4 Gene Mutations on Neural Response of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve in Children.

Authors:  Jianfen Luo; Lei Xu; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Angela Pellittieri; Xiaohui Bai; Zhaomin Fan; Haibo Wang; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Development of a fast method for determining psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Aleksander Sek; José Alcántara; Brian C J Moore; Karolina Kluk; Andrzej Wicher
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  A fast method for measuring psychophysical thresholds across the cochlear implant array.

Authors:  Julie A Bierer; Steven M Bierer; Heather A Kreft; Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.293

Review 10.  DFNB1 Non-syndromic Hearing Impairment: Diversity of Mutations and Associated Phenotypes.

Authors:  Francisco J Del Castillo; Ignacio Del Castillo
Journal:  Front Mol Neurosci       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 5.639

View more
  4 in total

1.  Single-Channel Focused Thresholds Relate to Vowel Identification in Pediatric and Adult Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Meisam K Arjmandi; Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.496

Review 2.  Spectral Resolution Development in Children With Normal Hearing and With Cochlear Implants: A Review of Behavioral Studies.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Julie G Arenberg; David L Horn
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2022-02-24       Impact factor: 2.674

3.  The Effect of Advanced Age on the Electrode-Neuron Interface in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Jeffrey Skidmore; Brittney L Carter; William J Riggs; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 3.562

4.  The Relationship Between Impedance, Programming and Word Recognition in a Large Clinical Dataset of Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Benjamin Caswell-Midwinter; Elizabeth M Doney; Meisam K Arjmandi; Kelly N Jahn; Barbara S Herrmann; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.