Literature DB >> 33434815

Assessing temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons in auditory brainstem and cochlear implant users.

Mahan Azadpour1, William H Shapiro2, J Thomas Roland2, Mario A Svirsky2.   

Abstract

The reasons why clinical outcomes with auditory brainstem implants (ABIs) are generally poorer than with cochlear implants (CIs) are still somewhat elusive. Prior work has focused on differences in processing of spectral information due to possibly poorer tonotopic representation and higher channel interaction with ABIs than with CIs. In contrast, this study examines the hypothesis that a potential contributing reason for poor speech perception in ABI users may be the relative lack of temporal responsiveness of the primary neurons that are stimulated by the ABI. The cochlear nucleus, the site of ABI stimulation, consists of different neuron types, most of which have much more complex responses than the auditory nerve neurons stimulated by a CI. Temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons was assessed in a group of ABI and CI users by measuring recovery of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from single-pulse forward masking. Slower ECAP recovery tended to be associated with poorer hearing outcomes in both groups. ABI subjects with the longest recovery time had no speech understanding or even no hearing sensation with their ABI device; speech perception for the one CI outlier with long ECAP recovery time was well below average. To the extent that ECAP recovery measures reveal temporal properties of the primary neurons that receive direct stimulation form neural prosthesis devices, they may provide a physiological underpinning for clinical outcomes of auditory implants. ECAP recovery measures may be used to determine which portions of the cochlear nucleus to stimulate, and possibly allow us to enhance the stimulation paradigms.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory brainstem implant; Cochlear implant; Electrically evoked compound action potential; Forward masking; Temporal recovery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33434815      PMCID: PMC7855898          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108163

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


  29 in total

1.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; B Gantz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 1.840

Review 2.  Temporal Considerations for Stimulating Spiral Ganglion Neurons with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Jason Boulet; Mark White; Ian C Bruce
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02

3.  Effects of pulse rate on thresholds and loudness of biphasic and alternating monophasic pulse trains in electrical hearing.

Authors:  Astrid van Wieringen; Robert P Carlyon; Olivier Macherey; Jan Wouters
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-08-10       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Characteristics of detection thresholds and maximum comfortable loudness levels as a function of pulse rate in human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Li Xu; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Auditory Brainstem Implantation in Neurofibromatosis Type 2: Experience From the Manchester Programme.

Authors:  Richard Thomas Ramsden; Simon Richard Mackenzie Freeman; Simon Kingsley Wickham Lloyd; Andrew Thomas King; Xin Shi; Charlotte Lucy Ward; Susan Mary Huson; Deborah Jane Mawman; Martin Paul O'Driscoll; Dafydd Gareth Evans; Scott Alexander Rutherford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 2.311

7.  Cochlear nucleus auditory prostheses.

Authors:  D B McCreery
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  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

Review 9.  Auditory Brainstem Implants: Recent Progress and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Kevin Wong; Elliott D Kozin; Vivek V Kanumuri; Nicolas Vachicouras; Jonathan Miller; Stéphanie Lacour; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 4.677

10.  Processing of speech temporal and spectral information by users of auditory brainstem implants and cochlear implants.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; Colette M McKay
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2014 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  2 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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.