Acoustic-electric interactions in the guinea pig auditory nerve: Simultaneous and forward masking of the electrically evoked compound action potential

Hearing Research

Volumn 232, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 87-103

  Nourski, Kirill V ^a   Abbas, Paul J ^a   Miller, Charles A ^a   Robinson, Barbara K ^a   Jeng, Fuh Cherng ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Cochlear implant; Deafening; Electric acoustic stimulation; Guinea pig; Recovery

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC IMPEDANCE; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY MASKING; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEA POTENTIAL; COCHLEAR NERVE; COCHLEAR NUCLEUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVALESCENCE; ELECTRIC ACTIVITY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HAIR CELL; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR NERVE; DEAFNESS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FUROSEMIDE; GUINEA PIGS; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NEOMYCIN; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; REFRACTORY PERIOD, ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 34548483464     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.07.001     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abbas, P.J., Miller, C.A., Rubinstein, J.T., Robinson, B.K., 2001. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Seventh Quarterly Progress Report. Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-9-2106 NIH.
2. Abbas, P.J., Miller, C.A., Robinson, B.K., Jeng, F.C., Nourski, K.V., 2003. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Fourth Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1005 NIH.
3. Abbas, P.J., Miller, C.A., Robinson, B.K., Jeng, F.C., Noh, H., Nourski, K.V., 2004. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Sixth Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1005 NIH.
4. Abbas, P.J., Etler, C., Nourski, K., Brown, C., Miller, C., 2005. Responses to electrical stimulation in individuals with residual hair cell function. Fourth International Symposium and Workshops: Objective Measures in Cochlear Implants, June 1-4, 2005, Hannover, Germany.
5. Anniko M., and Møller A.R. A physiological and morphological study of the cochlea of the rat following treatment with atoxyl and neomycin. Acta Otolaryngol. 86 3-4 (1978) 201-211
6. Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., and Gantz B.J. Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am. J. Otol. 19 (1998) 320-327
7. Brown C.J., Hughes M.L., Luk B., Abbas P.J., Wolaver A., and Gervais J. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear. 21 2 (2000) 151-163
8. Cohen N. Cochlear implant candidacy and surgical considerations. Audiol. Neurootol. 9 (2004) 197-202
9. Copeland B.J., and Pillsbury III H.C. Cochlear implantation for the treatment of deafness. Annu. Rev. Med. 55 (2004) 157-167
10. Dorman M.F., Spahr A.J., Loizou P.C., Dana C.J., and Schmidt J.S. Acoustic simulations of combined electric and acoustic hearing (EAS). Ear Hear. 26 4 (2005) 371-380
11. Eisen M.D., and Franck K.H. Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects. Ear Hear. 25 6 (2004) 528-538
12. Gantz B.J., and Turner C. Combining acoustic and electrical speech processing: Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Acta Otolaryngol. 124 4 (2004) 344-347
13. Gantz B.J., Turner C., and Gfeller K.E. Acoustic plus electric speech processing: preliminary results of a multicenter clinical trial of the Iowa/Nucleus hybrid implant. Audiol. Neurootol. 11 Suppl. 1 (2006) 63-68
14. Gstoettner W.K., Helbig S., Maier N., Kiefer J., Radeloff A., and Adunka O.F. Ipsilateral electric acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of long-term hearing preservation. Audiol. Neurootol. 11 Suppl. 1 (2006) 49-56
15. Haenggeli A., Zhang J.S., Vischer M.W., Pelizzone M., and Rouiller E.M. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) of the cochlear nerve in response to pulsatile electrical stimulation of the cochlea in the rat: effects of stimulation at high rates. Audiology 37 (1998) 353-371
16. Harris D.M., and Dallos P. Forward masking of auditory nerve fiber responses. J. Neurophysiol. 42 4 (1979) 1083-1105
17. Hinojosa R., Riggs L.C., Strauss M., and Matz G.J. Temporal bone histopathology of cisplatin ototoxicity. Am. J. Otol. 16 6 (1995) 731-740
18. Hinojosa R., Nelson E.G., Lerner S.A., Redleaf M.I., and Schramm D.R. Aminoglycoside ototoxicity: a human temporal bone study. Laryngoscope 111 10 (2001) 1797-1805
19. van den Honert C., and Stypulkowski P.H. Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings. Hear. Res. 14 (1984) 225-243
20. Hu N., Abbas P.J., Miller C.A., Robinson B.K., Nourski K.V., Jeng F.C., Abkes B.A., and Nichols J.M. Auditory response to intracochlear electric stimuli following furosemide treatment. Hear. Res. 185 (2003) 77-89
21. von Ilberg C., Kiefer J., Tillein J., Pfenningdorff T., Hartmann R., Sturzebecher E., and Klinke R. Electric-acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. New technology for severe hearing loss. ORL J. Otorhinolaryngol. Relat. Spec. 61 6 (1999) 334-340
22. James C., Albegger K., Battmer R., Burdo S., Deggouj N., Deguine O., Dillier N., Gersdorff M., Laszig R., Lenarz T., Rodriguez M.M., Mondain M., Offeciers E., Macias A.R., Ramsden R., Sterkers O., von Wallenberg E., Weber B., and Fraysse B. Preservation of residual hearing with cochlear implantation: how and why. Acta Otolaryngol. 125 5 (2005) 481-491
23. Kiang, N.Y.-S., Wanatabe, T., Thomas, E.C., Clark, L.F., 1965. Discharge patterns of single fibers in the cat's auditory nerve. Research Monograph No. 35. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
24. Kiefer J., Tillein J., von Ilberg C., Pfennigdorf T., Stürzebecher E., Klinke R., and Gstöttner W. Fundamental aspects and first results of the clinical application of combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system. In: Kubo T., Takahashi Y., and Iwaki T. (Eds). Cochlear Implants: An Update (2002), Karger Publications, The Hague, The Netherlands 569-576
25. Kiefer J., Pok M., Adunka O., Sturzebecher E., Baumgartner W., Schmidt M., Tillein J., Ye Q., and Gstoettner W. Combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system: results of a clinical study. Audiol. Neurootol. 10 (2005) 134-144
26. Killian, M.J.P., 1994. Excitability of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
27. Killian M.J.P., Klis S.F.L., and Smoorenburg G.F. Adaptation in the compound action potential response of the guinea pig VIIIth nerve to electric stimulation. Hear. Res. 81 (1994) 66-82
28. Leake-Jones P.A., Vivion M.C., O'Reilly B.F., and Merzenich M.M. Deaf animal models for studies of a multichannel cochlear prosthesis. Hear. Res. 8 (1982) 225-246
29. Litvak L., Delgutte B., and Eddington D. Auditory nerve fiber responses to electric stimulation: modulated and unmodulated pulse trains. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110 1 (2001) 368-379
30. Litvak L.M., Smith Z.M., Delgutte B., and Eddington D. Desynchronization of electrically evoked auditory-nerve activity by high-frequency pulse trains of long duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 114 4 (2003) 2066-2078
31. Matsuoka A.J., Abbas P.J., Rubinstein J.T., and Miller C.A. The neuronal response to electrical constant-amplitude pulse train stimulation: evoked compound action potential recordings. Hear. Res. 149 (2000) 115-128
32. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Rubinstein J.T., Robinson B.K., Matsuoka A.J., and Woodworth G. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear. Res. 119 (1998) 142-154
33. Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Rubinstein, J.T., Runge-Samuelson, C., Robinson, B.K., 2000. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Fifth Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-9-2106 NIH.
34. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., and Robinson B.K. Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2 3 (2001) 216-232
35. Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Hu, N., Robinson, B.K., 2003. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Second Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1005 NIH.
36. Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Noh, H., Robinson, B.K., Nourski, K.V., 2004. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Ninth Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1005 NIH.
37. Miller, C., Noh, H., Abbas, P., Robinson, B., Nourski, K., Jeng, F.C., 2005a. Effects of combined acoustic and electric stimuli: single auditory nerve fiber responses. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005 MidWinter Meeting. February 19-24, 2005, New Orleans, LA, USA, p. 357.
38. Miller, C.A., Robinson, B.K., Abbas, P.J., Nourski, K.V., Jeng, F.C., 2005b. Effects of remaining hair cells on cochlear implant function. Twelfth Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1005 NIH.
39. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Robinson B.K., Nourski K.V., Zhang F., and Jeng F.-C. Electrical excitation of the acoustically sensitive auditory nerve: single-fiber responses to electric pulse trains. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 7 (2006) 195-210
40. Moxon, E.C., 1971. Neural and mechanical responses to electric stimulation of the cat's inner ear. Ph.D. dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA.
41. NIH Consensus Statement, 1995. Cochlear implants in adults and children. NIH Consensus Statement 13(2), pp. 1-30.
42. Nourski K.V., Abbas P.J., Miller C.A., Robinson B.K., and Jeng F.C. Effects of acoustic noise on the auditory nerve compound action potentials evoked by electric pulse trains. Hear. Res. 202 (2005) 141-153
43. Nourski, K.V., Abbas, P.J., Miller, C.A., Robinson, B.K., Noh, H., 2005b. Acoustic-electric interactions in the auditory nerve: masking of the electrically-evoked compound action potential by acoustic noise. 2005 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses. July 30-August 4, 2005, Pacific Grove, CA, USA, p. 102.
44. Nourski, K., Abbas, P., Noh, H., Miller, C., Robinson, B., 2005c. Acoustic and electric interactions in the auditory nerve: simultaneous and forward masking of the electrically-evoked compound action potential. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2005 MidWinter Meeting. February 19-24, 2005, New Orleans, LA, USA. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. Abs.: 28.
45. Nourski, K., Abbas, P., Miller, C., Robinson, B., Jeng, F.-C., 2006. Forward masking of the electrically evoked compound action potential in animals with residual hair cell function. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2006 MidWinter Meeting. February 5-9, 2006, Baltimore, MD, USA. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. Abs.: 934.
46. Pike D.A., and Bosher S.K. The time course of strial changes produced by intravenous furosemide. Hear. Res. 3 (1980) 79-89
47. Rubinstein J.T., Wilson B.S., Finley C.C., and Abbas P.J. Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 127 (1999) 108-118
48. Ruggero M.A., and Rich N.C. Furosemide alters Organ of Corti mechanics: evidence for feedback of outer hair cells upon the basilar membrane. J. Neurosci. 11 4 (1991) 1057-1067
49. Searchfield G.D., Muñoz D.J.B., and Thorne P.R. Ensemble spontaneous activity in the guinea-pig cochlear nerve. Hear. Res. 192 (2004) 23-35
50. Sewell W.F. The effects of furosemide on the endocochlear potential and auditory-nerve fiber tuning curves in cats. Hear. Res. 14 (1984) 305-314
51. Sewell W.F. The relation between the endocochlear potential and spontaneous activity in auditory nerve fibres of the cat. J. Physiol. 347 (1984) 685-696
52. Sha S.H., Taylor R., Forge A., and Schacht J. Differential vulnerability of basal and apical hair cells is based on intrinsic susceptibility to free radicals. Hear. Res. 155 (2001) 1-8
53. Shepherd R.K., and Javel E. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. I. Correlation of physiological responses with cochlear status. Hear. Res. 108 (1997) 112-144
54. Skarżyński H., Lorens A., and Piotrowska A. A new method of partial deafness treatment. Med. Sci. Monit. 9 4 (2003) CS26-CS30
55. Skarżyński H., Lorens A., Piotrowska A., and Anderson I. Partial deafness cochlear implantation provides benefit to a new population of individuals with hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 126 9 (2006) 934-940
56. Smith R.L. Short-term adaptation in single auditory nerve fibers: some poststimulatory effects. J. Neurophysiol. 40 5 (1977) 1098-1111
57. Turner C.W., Gantz B.J., Vidal C., Behrens A., and Henry B.A. Speech recognition in noise for cochlear implant listeners: benefits of residual acoustic hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 115 4 (2004) 1729-1735
58. Westerman L.A., and Smith R.L. Rapid and short-term adaptation in auditory nerve responses. Hear. Res. 15 (1984) 249-260
59. Wilson, B., Wolford, R., Lawson, D., Schatzer, R., 2002. Speech processors for auditory prostheses. Third Quarterly Progress Report, Neural Prosthesis Program contract N01-DC-2-1002 NIH.
60. Wilson B.S., Lawson D.T., Müller J.M., Tyler R.S., and Kiefer J. Cochlear implants: some likely next steps. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 5 (2003) 207-249