Literature DB >> 34883366

Estimating health of the implanted cochlea using psychophysical strength-duration functions and electrode configuration.

Soha N Garadat1, Deborah J Colesa2, Donald L Swiderski2, Yehoash Raphael2, Bryan E Pfingst2.   

Abstract

It is generally believed that the efficacy of cochlear implants is partly dependent on the condition of the stimulated neural population. Cochlear pathology is likely to affect the manner in which neurons respond to electrical stimulation, potentially resulting in differences in perception of electrical stimuli across cochlear implant recipients and across the electrode array in individual cochlear implant users. Several psychophysical and electrophysiological measures have been shown to predict cochlear health in animals and were used to assess conditions near individual stimulation sites in humans. In this study, we examined the relationship between psychophysical strength-duration functions and spiral ganglion neuron density in two groups of guinea pigs with cochlear implants who had minimally-overlapping cochlear health profiles. One group was implanted in a hearing ear (N = 10) and the other group was deafened by cochlear perfusion of neomycin, inoculated with an adeno-associated viral vector with an Ntf3-gene insert (AAV.Ntf3) and implanted (N = 14). Psychophysically measured strength-duration functions for both monopolar and tripolar electrode configurations were then compared for the two treatment groups. Results were also compared to their histological outcomes. Overall, there were considerable differences between the two treatment groups in terms of their psychophysical performance as well as the relation between their functional performance and histological data. Animals in the neomycin-deafened, neurotrophin-treated, and implanted group (NNI) exhibited steeper strength-duration function slopes; slopes were positively correlated with SGN density (steeper slopes in animals that had higher SGN densities). In comparison, the implanted hearing (IH) group had shallower slopes and there was no relation between slopes and spiral ganglion density. Across all animals, slopes were negatively correlated with ensemble spontaneous activity levels (shallower slopes with higher ensemble spontaneous activity levels). We hypothesize that differences in strength-duration function slopes between the two treatment groups were related to the condition of the inner hair cells, which generate spontaneous activity that could affect the across-fiber synchrony and/or the size of the population of neural elements responding to electrical stimulation. In addition, it is likely that spiral ganglion neuron peripheral processes were present in the IH group, which could affect membrane properties of the stimulated neurons. Results suggest that the two treatment groups exhibited distinct patterns of variation in conditions near the stimulating electrodes that altered detection thresholds. Overall, the results of this study suggest a complex relationship between psychophysical detection thresholds for cochlear implant stimulation and nerve survival in the implanted cochlea. This relationship seems to depend on the characteristics of the electrical stimulus, the electrode configuration, and other biological features of the implanted cochlea such as the condition of the inner hair cells and the peripheral processes.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear health; Cochlear implant; Electrode configuration; Inner hair cells; Spiral ganglion neurons; Strength-duration functions

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34883366      PMCID: PMC8761176          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108404

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


  81 in total

1.  Effects of electrode configuration and stimulus level on rate and level discrimination with cochlear implants.

Authors:  D J Morris; B E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2000-11

2.  Electrode configuration influences action potential initiation site and ensemble stochastic response properties.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Paul J Abbas; Kirill V Nourski; Ning Hu; Barbara K Robinson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  New measurements of the capacity and the resistance of the myelin sheath and the nodal membrane of the isolated frog nerve fiber.

Authors:  I TASAKI
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1955-06

4.  Threshold and channel interaction in cochlear implant users: evaluation of the tripolar electrode configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Structural and Ultrastructural Changes to Type I Spiral Ganglion Neurons and Schwann Cells in the Deafened Guinea Pig Cochlea.

Authors:  Andrew K Wise; Remy Pujol; Thomas G Landry; James B Fallon; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-17

6.  Asynchronous neural activity recorded from the round window.

Authors:  D F Dolan; A L Nuttall; G Avinash
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  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

8.  Cochlear pathology of long term neomycin induced deafness in cats.

Authors:  P A Leake; G T Hradek
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Auditory-nerve single-neuron thresholds to electrical stimulation from scala tympani electrodes.

Authors:  C W Parkins; J Colombo
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1987-12-31       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Ramped pulse shapes are more efficient for cochlear implant stimulation in an animal model.

Authors:  Charlotte Amalie Navntoft; Jeremy Marozeau; Tania Rinaldi Barkat
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.