Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites

Hearing Research

Volumn 269, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 146-161

  Undurraga, Jaime A ^a   van Wieringen, Astrid ^a   Carlyon, Robert P ^b   Macherey, Olivier ^b   Wouters, Jan ^a  

^a KU LEUVEN UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CELL POLARITY; COCHLEA; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE DURATION; ELECTRICITY; ELECTRODE; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; LATENT PERIOD; NERVE CELL; NERVE CELL STIMULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

CELL POLARITY; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REACTION TIME;

EID: 77956339053     PISSN: 03785955     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.06.017     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Bonnet R.M., Frijns J.H., Peeters S., Briaire J.J. Speech recognition with a cochlear implant using triphasic charge-balanced pulses. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004, 124:371-375.
2. Briaire J.J., Frijns J.H. Unraveling the electrically evoked compound action potential. Hear. Res. 2005, 205:143-156.
3. Brown C.J., Abbas P.J., Gantz B. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1990, 88:1385-1391.
4. Brummer S., Turner M. Electrochemical considerations for safe electrical stimulation of the nervous system with platinum electrodes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 1977, 59-63.
5. Carlyon R.P., van Wieringen A., Deeks J.M., Long C.J., Lyzenga J., Wouters J. Effect of inter-phase gap on the sensitivity of cochlear implant users to electrical stimulation. Hear. Res. 2005, 205:210-224.
6. Cartee, L., Wilson, B., Cox, J., Wolford, R., Lawson, D., 2004. Intracochlear potentials evoked by electrical stimulation with phase-separated balanced biphasic pulses. Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses, Ninth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-2-1002.
7. Chatterjee M., Galvin J.J., Fu Q.J., Shannon R.V. Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2006, 7:15-25.
8. Cohen L.T. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current. Hear. Res. 2009, 247:87-99.
9. Cohen L.T. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 5. Refractory recovery and facilitation. Hear. Res. 2009, 248:1-14.
10. 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. 2003, 182:77-87.
11. Eddington, D., Noel, V., Rabinowitz, W., Svirsky, M., Tierney, J., Zissman, M., 1994. Speech Processors for Auditory Prostheses, Eighth Quarterly Progress Report. NIH Contract N01-DC-2-2402.
12. Eddington D.K., Dobelle W.H., Brackmann D.E., Mladejovsky M.G., Parkin J.L. Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1978, 87:1-39.
13. Fayad J.N., Linthicum F.H. Multichannel cochlear implants: relation of histopathology to performance. Laryngoscope 2006, 116:1310-1320.
14. Frijns J.H., de Snoo S.L., Ten Kate J.H. Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear. Res. 1996, 95:33-48.
15. Frijns J.H., Briaire J.J., de Laat J.A., Grote J.J. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear. 2002, 23:184-197.
16. Hinojosa R., Marion M. Histopathology of profound sensorineural deafness. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. 1983, 405:459-484.
17. Javel E., Shepherd R.K. Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve. III. Response initiation sites and temporal fine structure. Hear. Res. 2000, 140:45-76.
18. Klop W.M., Hartlooper A., Briare J.J., Frijns J.H. A new method for dealing with the stimulus artefact in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements. Acta Otolaryngol. 2004, 124:137-143.
19. 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.
20. Lai W.K., Dillier N. Comparing neural response telemetry amplitude growth functions with loudness growth functions: preliminary results. Ear Hear. 2007, 28:42S-45S.
21. Macherey O., van Wieringen A., Carlyon R.P., Deeks J.M., Wouters J. Asymmetric pulses in cochlear implants: effects of pulse shape, polarity, and rate. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2006, 7:253-266.
22. Macherey O., Carlyon R.P., van Wieringen A., Deeks J.M., Wouters J. Higher sensitivity of human auditory nerve fibers to positive electrical currents. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2008, 9:241-251.
23. Macherey O., van Wieringen A., Carlyon R.P., Dhooge I., Wouters J. Forward-masking patterns produced by symmetric and asymmetric pulse shapes in electric hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 127:326-338.
24. Matsuoka A.J., Abbas P.J., Rubinstein J.T., Miller C.A. The neuronal response to electrical constant-amplitude pulse train stimulation: evoked compound action potential recordings. Hear. Res. 2000, 149:115-128.
25. Mcintyre C., Grill W. Selective microstimulation of central nervous system neurons. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2000, 28:219-233.
26. Mcintyre C., Grill W. Extracellular stimulation of central neurons: influence of stimulus waveform and frequency on neuronal output. J. Neurophysiol. 2002, 88:1592-1604.
27. Mckay C.M., Henshall K.R. The perceptual effects of interphase gap duration in cochlear implant stimulation. Hear. Res. 2003, 181:94-99.
28. Miller A.L., Morris D.J., Pfingst B.E. Interactions between pulse separation and pulse polarity order in cochlear implants. Hear. Res. 1997, 109:21-33.
29. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Rubinstein J.T., Robinson B.K., Matsuoka A.J., Woodworth G. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear. Res. 1998, 119:142-154.
30. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Robinson B.K., Rubinstein J.T., Matsuoka A.J. Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear. Res. 1999, 130:197-218.
31. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Robinson B.K. Response properties of the refractory auditory nerve fiber. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 2001, 2:216-232.
32. Miller C.A., Robinson B.K., Rubinstein J.T., Abbas P.J., Runge-Samuelson C.L. Auditory nerve responses to monophasic and biphasic electric stimuli. Hear. Res. 2001, 151:79-94.
33. Miller C.A., Abbas P.J., Hay-Mccutcheon M.J., Robinson B.K., Nourski K.V., Jeng F.C. Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials. Hear. Res. 2004, 198:75-86.
34. Morsnowski A., Charasse B., Collet L., Killian M., Muller-Deile J. Measuring the refractoriness of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. Audiol. Neurootol. 2006, 11:389-402.
35. Ranck J. Which elements are excited in electrical stimulation of mammalian central nervous system: a review. Brain Res. 1975, 98:417-440.
36. Rattay F. The basic mechanism for the electrical stimulation of the nervous system. Neuroscience 1999, 89:335-346.
37. 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. 2001, 153:43-63.
38. Robblee L., Rose T. Electrochemical guidelines for selection of protocols and electrode materials for neural stimulation. Neural Prostheses: Fundamental Studies 1990, 25-66.
39. Tsuji J., Liberman M.C. Intracellular labeling of auditory nerve fibers in guinea pig: central and peripheral projections. J. Comp. Neurol. 1997, 381:188-202.
40. van den Honert C., Mortimer J.T. The response of the myelinated nerve fiber to short duration biphasic stimulating currents. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 1979, 7:117-125.
41. van Wieringen A., Carlyon R.P., Laneau J., Wouters J. Effects of waveform shape on human sensitivity to electrical stimulation of the inner ear. Hear. Res. 2005, 200:73-86.
42. van Wieringen A., Carlyon R.P., Macherey O., Wouters J. Effects of pulse rate on thresholds and loudness of biphasic and alternating monophasic pulse trains in electrical hearing. Hear. Res. 2006, 220:49-60.
43. van Wieringen A., Macherey O., Carlyon R.P., Deeks J.M., Wouters J. Alternative pulse shapes in electrical hearing. Hear. Res. 2008, 242:154-163.