Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents

JARO - Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 241-251

  Macherey, Olivier ^a,b   Carlyon, Robert P ^b   Van Wieringen, Astrid ^a   Deeks, John M ^b   Wouters, Jan ^a  

^a KU LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Asymmetric pulses; Auditory nerve; Cochlear implants; Electrical stimulation; Psychophysical masking; Stimulus polarity

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NERVE FIBER; ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY MASKING; AUDITORY SYSTEM; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; DEMYELINATION; DEPOLARIZATION; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; SPEECH;

ACTION POTENTIALS; AGED; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NERVE FIBERS; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOPHYSICS;

EID: 44449114613     PISSN: 15253961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10162-008-0112-4     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 88:1385-1391, 1990.
2. Brummer SB, Turner MJ. Electrochemical considerations for safe electrical stimulation of the nervous system with platinum electrodes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 24:59-63, 1977.
3. Carlyon RP, van Wieringen A, Deeks JM, Long CJ, Lyzenga J, Wouters J. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 205:210-224, 2005.
4. Cartee LA, Finley CC, van den Honert C, Lawson DT, Wilson BS. Intracochlear evoked potential responses to biphasic pulses with an interpulse gap. Asilomar Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Pacific Grove, USA, p 84, 2005.
5. Chatterjee M, Galvin JJ III, Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 7:15-25, 2006.
6. De Balthasar C, Boex C, Cosendai G, Valentini G, Sigrist A, Pelizzone M. Channel interactions with high-rate biphasic electrical stimulation in cochlear implant subjects. Hear. Res. 182:77-87, 2003.
7. Fayad JN, Linthicum FH, Jr. Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope 116:1310-1320, 2006.
8. Frijns JHM, de Snoo SL, ten Kate JH. Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear. Res. 95:33-48, 1996.
9. Hartmann R, Topp G, Klinke R. Discharge patterns of cat primary auditory fibers with electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear. Res. 13:47-62, 1984.
10. Klop WMC, Hartlooper A, Briaire JJ, Frijns JHM. A new method for dealing with the stimulus artifact in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements. Acta Otolaryngol. 124:137-143, 2004.
11. Kral A, Hartmann R, Mortazavi D, Klinke R. Spatial resolution of cochlear implants: the electrical field and excitation of auditory afferents. Hear. Res. 121:11-28, 1998.
12. Laneau J, Boets B, Moonen M, van Wieringen A, Wouters J. A flexible auditory research platform using acoustic and electric stimuli for adults and young children. J. Neurosci. Methods 142:131-136, 2005.
13. Liberman MC, Oliver ME. Morphometry of intracellularly labeled neurons in the auditory nerve: correlations with functional properties. J. Comp. Neurol. 223:163-176, 1984.
14. Macherey O, van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Deeks JM, Wouters J. Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity and rate. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 7:253-266, 2006.
15. McIntyre CC, Grill WM. Excitation of central nervous system neurons by nonuniform electric fields. Biophys. J. 76:878-888, 1999.
16. McKay CM, Henshall KR. The perceptual effects of interphase gap duration in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear. Res. 181:94-99, 2003.
17. Miller CA, Faulkner MJ, Pfingst BE. Functional responses from guinea pigs with cochlear implants. II. Changes in electrophysiological and psychophysical measures over time. Hear. Res. 92:100-111, 1995.
18. Miller AL, Morris DJ, Pfingst BE. Interactions between pulse separation and pulse polarity order in cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 109:21-33, 1997.
19. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Rubinstein JT, Robinson BK, Matsuoka AJ, Woodworth G. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear. Res. 119:142-154, 1998.
20. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK, Rubinstein JT, Matsuoka AJ. Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear. Res. 130:197-218, 1999a.
21. Miller AL, Smith DW, Pfingst BE. Across-species comparisons of psychophysical detection thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea: I. Sinusoidal stimuli. Hear. Res. 134:89-104, 1999b.
22. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK. Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2:216-232, 2001.
23. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Robinson BK, Nourski KV, Jeng FC. Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials. Hear. Res. 198:75-86, 2004.
24. Moon AK, Zwolan TA, Pfingst BE. Effects of phase duration on detection of electrical stimulation of the human cochlea. Hear. Res. 67:166-178, 1993.
25. Morsnowski A, Charasse B, Collet L, Killian M, Müller-Deile J. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Audiol. Neurootol. 11:389-402, 2006.
26. Prado-Guitierrez P, Fewster LM, Heasman JM, McKay CM, Shepherd RK. Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival. Hear. Res. 215:47-55, 2006.
27. Ranck JB, Jr. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res. 98:417-440, 1975.
28. Rattay F. Analysis of models for extracellular fiber stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 36:676-682, 1989.
29. Rattay F. The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system. Neuroscience 89:335-346, 1999.
30. Rattay F, Lutter P, Felix H. A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. I. Contribution of neural substructures to the generation and propagation of spikes. Hear. Res. 153:43-63, 2001a.
31. Rattay F, Leao RN, Felix H. A model of the electrically excited human cochlear neuron. II. Influence of the three-dimensional cochlear structure on neural excitability. Hear. Res. 153:64-79, 2001b.
32. Rubinstein JT. Axon termination conditions for electrical stimulation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 40:654-663, 1993.
33. Shepherd RK, Javel E. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: II. Effect of stimulus waveshape on single fibre response properties. Hear. Res. 130:171-188, 1999.
34. Spoendlin H, Schrott A. Analysis of the human auditory nerve. Hear. Res. 43:25-38, 1989.
35. Stypulkowski PH, van den Honert C. Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. I. Compound action potential recordings. Hear. Res. 14:205-223, 1984.
36. van Wieringen A, Carlyon RP, Laneau J, Wouters J. Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear. Hear. Res. 200:73-86, 2005.
37. van den Honert C, Stypulkowski PH. Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings. Hear Res. 14:225-243, 1984.