Literature DB >> 33099252

Cochlear microphonic latency predicts outer hair cell function in animal models and clinical populations.

Christofer Bester1, Stefan Weder2, Aaron Collins3, Adrian Dragovic4, Kate Brody3, Amy Hampson3, Stephen O'Leary5.   

Abstract

As recently reported, electrocochleography recorded in cochlear implant recipients showed reduced amplitude and shorter latency in patients with more severe high-frequency hearing loss compared with those with some residual hearing. As the response is generated primarily by receptor currents in outer hair cells, these variations in amplitude and latency may indicate outer hair cell function after cochlear implantation. We propose that an absence of latency shift when the cochlear microphonic is measured on two adjacent electrodes indicates an absence or dysfunction of outer hair cells between these electrodes. We test this preclinically in noise deafened guinea pigs (2 h of a 124 dB HL, 16-24 kHz narrow-band noise), and clinically, in electrocochleographic recordings made in cochlear implant recipients immediately after implantation. We found that normal hearing guinea pigs showed a progressive increase in latency from basal to apical electrodes. In contrast, guinea pigs with significantly elevated high-frequency hearing thresholds showed no change in cochlear microphonic latency measured on basal electrodes (located approximately at the 16-24 kHz location in the cochlea).. In the clinical cohort, a significant negative correlation existed between cochlear microphonic latency shifts and hearing thresholds at 1-, 2-, & 4 kHz when tested on electrodes located at the relevant cochlear tonotopic place. This reduction in latency shift was such that patients with no measurable hearing also had no detectable latency shift (place assessed by CT scan, r's of -.70 to -.83). These findings suggest that electrocochleography can be used as a diagnostic tool to detect cochlear regions with functioning hair cells, which may be important for defining cross-over point for electro-acoustic stimulation.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory nerve neurophonic; Cochlear microphonic; Electrocochleography; Intraoperative monitoring; Sensorineural hearing loss

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33099252     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108094

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


  4 in total

1.  Increasing the reliability of real-time electrocochleography during cochlear implantation: a standardized guideline.

Authors:  K Schuerch; M Waser; G Mantokoudis; L Anschuetz; M Caversaccio; W Wimmer; S Weder
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 3.236

2.  Clinical experiences with intraoperative electrocochleography in cochlear implant recipients and its potential to reduce insertion trauma and improve postoperative hearing preservation.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Michael Bardt; Sabine Haumann; Gunnar Geissler; Rolf Salcher; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  Objectification of intracochlear electrocochleography using machine learning.

Authors:  Klaus Schuerch; Wilhelm Wimmer; Adrian Dalbert; Christian Rummel; Marco Caversaccio; Georgios Mantokoudis; Stefan Weder
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 4.086

4.  In Vivo Basilar Membrane Time Delays in Humans.

Authors:  Marek Polak; Artur Lorens; Adam Walkowiak; Mariusz Furmanek; Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-03-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.