Literature DB >> 6841801

Acoustically derived auditory nerve action potential evoked by electrical stimulation: an estimation of the waveform of single unit contribution.

R C de Sauvage, Y Cazals, J P Erre, J M Aran.   

Abstract

An experimental study of the electrical stimulation of the guinea pig cochlea is made using an electrode on the round window for both stimulation and recording. The neural response is separated from the electrical artifact with a masking procedure combined with a low amplification, "statistical" averaging method [Charlet de Sauvage et al., Hear. Res. 2, 343-346 (1980)]. The high electrical impedance required for recording physiological responses implies the use of a current pulse generator. Monitoring of evoked potentials from the auditory cortex provides evidence that the effects of electrical stimulation (and of masking noise) are of auditory origin. The electrically evoked round window response is of very short latency (less than 0.2 ms). There is a response threshold for both electrical stimulus and masking noise. The response amplitude varies monotonically as a function of masking noise or electrical stimulus intensity. Experiments with high-pass noise masking suggest that the electrical stimulus is mainly acting on basal fibers. The response latency and waveform are independent of electrical stimulus intensity, repetition rate, masker level, or spectrum. Little intersubject variation is noted. Our experiments (reciprocal forward masking by electrical and acoustic stimuli) suggest that a direct, instantaneous electrical stimulation of the fibers occurs. We believe that this response to electrical stimulation represents the mean unit response of the auditory nerve fibers. This approach may be useful in the separate study of cochlear and VIIIth nerve functions and in the analysis (deconvolution) of the acoustically evoked compound AP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1983        PMID: 6841801     DOI: 10.1121/1.388872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am        ISSN: 0001-4966            Impact factor:   1.840


  7 in total

1.  [Refractory behaviour of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve].

Authors:  A Morsnowski; B Charasse; L Collet; M Killian; J Müller-Deile
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival.

Authors:  Pavel Prado-Guitierrez; Leonie M Fewster; John M Heasman; Colette M McKay; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Artificial activation and degeneration of the cochlear nerve in guinea pigs.

Authors:  Y Cazals; J M Aran; R Charlet de Sauvage
Journal:  Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1983

4.  Cochlear-implant spatial selectivity with monopolar, bipolar and tripolar stimulation.

Authors:  Ziyan Zhu; Qing Tang; Fan-Gang Zeng; Tian Guan; Datian Ye
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  Bilateral cochlear implantation in the ferret: a novel animal model for behavioral studies.

Authors:  Douglas E H Hartley; Tara Vongpaisal; Jin Xu; Robert K Shepherd; Andrew J King; Amal Isaiah
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2010-05-31       Impact factor: 2.390

Review 6.  Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity.

Authors:  Lucas H M Mens
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-09

Review 7.  The Panoramic ECAP Method: Estimating Patient-Specific Patterns of Current Spread and Neural Health in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Charlotte Garcia; Tobias Goehring; Stefano Cosentino; Richard E Turner; John M Deeks; Tim Brochier; Taren Rughooputh; Manohar Bance; Robert P Carlyon
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-04-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.