Electrical resistivity measurements in the mammalian cochlea after neural degeneration

Laryngoscope

Volumn 116, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 1334-1341

  Micco, Alan G ^a,b   Richter, Claus Peter ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Searle 12 561 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlea; Cochlear implant; Electrical resistivity; Four electrode reflection coefficient technique; Gerbil

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CELL POPULATION; COCHLEA; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRIC RESISTANCE; ELECTRODE; GERBIL; MIDDLE EAR; NERVE CELL; NERVE CELL DEGENERATION; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ANIMALS; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE; ELECTRODES; GERBILLINAE; NERVE DEGENERATION;

EID: 33746802011     PISSN: 0023852X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mlg.0000231828.37699.ab     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Shannon RV, Fu QJ, Galvin J 3rd. The number of spectral channels required for speech recognition depends on the difficulty of the listening situation. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 2004;50-54.
2. Friesen LM, Shannon RV, Baskent D, Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2001;110:1150-1163.
3. Fu QJ, Shannon RV, Wang X. Effects of noise and spectral resolution on vowel and consonant recognition: acoustic and electric hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1998;104:3586-3596.
4. Vanpoucke F, Zarowski A, Casselman J, Frijns J, Peeters S. The facial nerve canal: an important cochlear conduction path revealed by Clarion electrical field imaging. Otol Neurotol 2004;25:282-289.
5. Kral A, Hartmann R, Tillein J, Heid S, Klinke R. Delayed maturation and sensitive periods in the auditory cortex. Audiol Neurootol 2001;6:346-362.
6. Liang DH, Lusted HS, White RL. The nerve-electrode interface of the cochlear implant: current spread. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1999;46:35-43.
7. von Békésy G. Experiments in Hearing. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co, 1960.
8. von Békésy G. The course pattern of the electrical resistance in the cochlea of the guinea pig (electroanatomy of the cochlea). JASA 1951;23:18-28.
9. Misrahy GA, Hildreth EW, Shinabarger EW, Gannon WJ. Electrical properties of wall of endolymphatic sac of the cochlea (guinea pig). Am J Physiol 1958;192:396-402.
10. Misrahy GA, Shinabarger EW, Gannon WJ. Studies on the electrical properties of the cochlea (guinea pig). WADC Technical Report 57-462 1957;1-17.
11. Kurokawa S. Experimental study of electrical resistance of basilar membrane in guinea pig. J Oto-Rhino-Laryngol Soc Jpn 1965;68:1177-1195.
12. Johnstone BM, Johnstone JR, Pugsley ID. Resistance in endolymphatic walls of the first turn of the guinea pig cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1966;40:1398-1404.
13. Honrubia V, Strelioff D, Ward PH. A quantitative study of cochlear potentials along the scala media of the guinea pig. J Acoust Soc Am 1973;54:600-609.
14. Sitko E, Honrubia V, Strelioff D. Electrical resistance measurements of the walls of the guinea pig cochlear channels. JASA 1973;54:295.
15. Honrubia V, Ward PH. Mechanism of production of cochlear microphonics. J Acoust Soc Am 1970;47:498-503.
16. Honrubia V, Ward PH. Cochlear potentials inside the cochlear duct at the level of the round window. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1969;78:1189-1200.
17. Honrubia V, Ward PH. Longitudinal distribution of the cochlear microphonics inside the cochlear duct (guinea pig). J Acoust Soc Am 1968;44:951-958.
18. Cannon MW. Electrical Impedances, Current Pathways, and Voltage Sources in the Guinea Pig Cochlea. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Syracuse University, 1976.
19. Geisler CD, Mountain DC, Hubbard AE, Adrian HO, Ravindran A. Alternating electrical-resistance changes in the guinea-pig cochlea caused by acoustic stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 1977;61:1557-1566.
20. Asakuma S, Snow JB, Murakami Y. Electrical resistance of the cochlear partition. Hear Res 1978;1:25-30.
21. Spelman FA, Clopton BM, Pfingst BE. Tissue impedance and current flow in the implanted ear. Implications for the cochlear prosthesis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1982;98:3-8.
22. Spelman FA. The cochlear prosthesis: a review of the design and evaluation of electrode implants for the profoundly deaf. Crit Rev Biomed Eng 1982;8:223-252.
23. Spelman FA. The past, present, and future of cochlear prostheses. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 1999;18:27-33.
24. Kral A, Hartmann R, Mortazavi D, Klinke R. Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents. Hear Res 1998;121:11-28.
25. Mortazavi M. Untersuchungen zur Einschrankung des elektrischen Feldes und Verbesserung der Kanaltrennung bei intracochleaerer elektrischer Reizung. Frankfurt am Main: JWG-Universitat, 1995.
26. Strelioff D. A computer simulation of the generation and distribution of cochlear potentials. JASA 1973;54:620-629.
27. Haas GF. Electric network effects in the cochlea. J Acoust Soc Am 1973;53:2-7.
28. Suesserman MF, Spelman FA. Quantitative in vivo measurements of inner ear tissue resistivities: I. In vitro characterization IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993;40:1032-1047.
29. Suesserman MF, Spelman FA. Lumped-parameter model for in vivo cochlear stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1993;40:237-245.
30. Suesserman MF. Noninvasive Microelectrode Measurement Technique for Performing Quantitative, In Vivo Measurements of Inner Ear Tissue Impedances. University of Washington, 1992.
31. Hu X, Evans BN, Dallos P. Transmission of basilar membrane motion to reticular lamina motion. Abtsr Assoc Res Otolaryngol 1995;223.
32. Richter CP, Edge R, He DZ, Dallos P. Development of the gerbil inner ear observed in the hemicochlea. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2000;1:195-210.
33. Edge RM, Evans BN, Pearce M, Richter CP, Hu X, Dallos P. Morphology of the unfixed cochlea. Hear Res 1998;124:1-16.
34. Emadi G, Richter CP, Dallos P. Stiffness of the gerbil basilar membrane: radial and longitudinal variations. J Neurophysiol 2004;91:474-488.
35. Gummer AW, Smolders JW, Klinke R. Basilar membrane motion in the pigeon measured with the Mossbauer technique. Hear Res 1987;29:63-92.
36. Taylor MM, Creelman CD. PEST: efficient estimates on probability functions. J Acoust Soc Am 1967;41:782-787.
37. Wait JR. Geo-Electromagnetism. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
38. Keiler S, Richter CP. Cochlear dimensions obtained in hemicochleae of four different strains of mice: CBA/CaJ, 129/CD1, 129/SvEv and C57BL/6J. Hear Res 2001;162:91-104.
39. Misrahy GA, Hildreth KM, Clark LC, Shinabarger EW. Measurement of the pH of the endolymph in the cochlea of guinea pigs. Am J Physiol 1958;194:393-395.
40. Honrubia V, Ward PH. Dependence of the cochlear microphonics and the summating potential on the endocochlear potential. J Acoust Soc Am 1969;46:388-392.
41. Honrubia V, Strelioff D, Sitko ST. Physiological basis of cochlear transduction and sensitivity. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1976;85:697-710.