Literature DB >> 9083801

Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study.

J Xu1, R K Shepherd, R E Millard, G M Clark.   

Abstract

A major factor associated with recent improvements in the clinical performance of cochlear implant patients has been the development of speech-processing strategies based on high stimulation rates. While these processing strategies show clear clinical advantage, we know little of their long-term safety implications. The present study was designed to evaluate the physiological and histopathological effects of long-term intracochlear electrical stimulation using these high rates. Thirteen normal-hearing adult cats were bilaterally implanted with scala tympani electrode arrays and unilaterally stimulated for periods of up to 2100 h using either two pairs of bipolar or three monopolar stimulating electrodes. Stimuli consisted of short duration (25-50 microseconds/phase) charge-balanced biphasic current pulses presented at 1000 pulses per second (pps) per channel for monopolar stimulation, and 2000 pps/channel for bipolar stimulation. The electrodes were shorted between current pulses to minimize any residual direct current, and the pulse trains were presented using a 50% duty cycle (500 ms on; 500 ms off) in order to simulate speech. Both acoustic (ABR) and electrical (EABR) auditory brainstem responses were recorded periodically during the chronic stimulation program. All cochleas showed an increase in the click-evoked ABR threshold following implant surgery; however, recovery to near-normal levels occurred in approximately half of the stimulated cochleas 1 month post-operatively. The use of frequency-specific stimuli indicated that the most extensive hearing loss generally occurred in the high-frequency basal region of the cochlea (12 and 24 kHz) adjacent to the stimulating electrode. However, thresholds at lower frequencies (2, 4 and 8 kHz), appeared at near-normal levels despite long-term electrode implantation and electrical stimulation. Our longitudinal EABR results showed a statistically significant increase in threshold in nearly 40% of the chronically stimulated electrodes evaluated; however, the gradient of the EABR input/output (I/O) function (evoked potential response amplitude versus stimulus current) generally remained quite stable throughout the chronic stimulation period. Histopathological examination of the cochleas showed no statistically significant difference in ganglion cell densities between cochleas using monopolar and bipolar electrode configurations (P = 0.67), and no evidence of cochlear damage caused by high-rate electrical stimulation when compared with control cochleas. Indeed, there was no statistically significant relationship between spiral ganglion cell density and electrical stimulation (P = 0.459), or between the extent of loss of inner (IHC, P = 0.86) or outer (OHC, P = 0.30) hair cells and electrical stimulation. Spiral ganglion cell loss was, however, influenced by the degree of inflammation (P = 0.016) and electrode insertion trauma. These histopathological findings were consistent with the physiological data. Finally, electrode impedance, measured at completion of the chronic stimulation program, showed close correlation with the degree of tissue response adjacent to the electrode array. These results indicated that chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation, using carefully controlled charge-balanced biphasic current pulses at stimulus rates of up to 2000 pps/channel, does not appear to adversely affect residual auditory nerve elements or the cochlea in general. This study provides an important basis for the safe application of improved speech-processing strategies based on high-rate electrical stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9083801     DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(96)00193-1

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


  56 in total

Review 1.  The multiple-channel cochlear implant: the interface between sound and the central nervous system for hearing, speech, and language in deaf people-a personal perspective.

Authors:  Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2006-05-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Neural masking by sub-threshold electric stimuli: animal and computer model results.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Jihwan Woo; Paul J Abbas; Ning Hu; Barbara K Robinson
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-11-16

3.  Examining the auditory nerve fiber response to high rate cochlear implant stimulation: chronic sensorineural hearing loss and facilitation.

Authors:  Leon F Heffer; David J Sly; James B Fallon; Mark W White; Robert K Shepherd; Stephen J O'Leary
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 4.  Implantable neurotechnologies: electrical stimulation and applications.

Authors:  Sudip Nag; Nitish V Thakor
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 5.  The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system.

Authors:  James F Patrick; Peter A Busby; Peter J Gibson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-12

6.  Electrical excitation of the acoustically sensitive auditory nerve: single-fiber responses to electric pulse trains.

Authors:  Charles A Miller; Paul J Abbas; Barbara K Robinson; Kirill V Nourski; Fawen Zhang; Fuh-Cherng Jeng
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2006-05-16

7.  Does cochlear implantation and electrical stimulation affect residual hair cells and spiral ganglion neurons?

Authors:  Anne Coco; Stephanie B Epp; James B Fallon; Jin Xu; Rodney E Millard; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  A novel stimulus artifact removal technique for high-rate electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Leon F Heffer; James B Fallon
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2008-02-03       Impact factor: 2.390

9.  The development of neural stimulators: a review of preclinical safety and efficacy studies.

Authors:  Robert K Shepherd; Joel Villalobos; Owen Burns; David A X Nayagam
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 5.379

10.  Delayed changes in auditory status in cochlear implant users with preserved acoustic hearing.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Viral D Tejani; Julia K Omtvedt; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Jacob J Oleson; Marie V Ozanne
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.