Chronic electrical stimulation of auditory nerve in cat: Physiological and histological results

Walsh, Sheila; Leake-Jones, Patricia A.

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(82)90041-7

Cited by 84 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The waveform morphology is similar to the single and multichannel implant recordings reported by other authors (Game et al, 1987;Gardi, 1985;Miyamoto, 1986;Starr & Brackmann, 1979;Stypulkowski et al, 1986;Walsh & Leake-Jones, 1982). With a multichannel implant, it is possible to stimulate various portions of the cochlea (e.g., basal versus apical) independently as noted by Gardi (1985).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

“…The findings of suggest that the slope of the EMLR input/output function in guinea pigs treated with ototoxic drugs predicts the survival of VIIIth nerve ganglion cells. In another study employing cats, Walsh and Leake-Jones (1982) reported that the input-output function of the EABR was more sensitive than threshold measurements to the anatomical degradation within the cochlea resulting from chronic electrical stimulation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses (EABR) and Middle Latency Responses (EMLR) Obtained from Patients with the Nucleus Multichannel Cochlear Implant

et al. 1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrical auditory brain stem responses (EABR) and electrical middle latency responses (EMLR) were recorded from patients who had received the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant system. Twenty-five sequential patients had either intraoperative or outpatient EABR testing. We also recorded EMLRs from several outpatients. EABR results were consistent among all patients tested. Wave V mean latencies were the shortest (3.82 msec) for the most apical electrode (E20) and increased slightly for the medial (E12) and basal (E5) electrodes (3.94 and 4.20 msec, respectively). Absolute latencies for all EABR component waves were observed to be 1 to 1.5 msec shorter than typical acoustic auditory brain stem response (ABR) mean latencies.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 82%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses (EABR) and Middle Latency Responses (EMLR) Obtained from Patients with the Nucleus Multichannel Cochlear Implant

et al. 1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These responses reflect activity from the eighth nerve and brainstem (Jewett and Williston, 1971;Møller and Jannetta, 1985). They have been used to estimate spiral ganglion cell survival (Simmons and Smith, 1983;Walsh and Leake-Jones, 1982) and evaluate the critical synchronous components of neural encoding at the periphery of the auditory neural pathway. Wave I cannot be seen in cochlear implant recipients since it has a latency of approximatively 0.35 ms (as seen in recordings of the electrically evoked action potential, Abbas et al, 1998;Franck and Norton, 2001) and is embedded in stimulus artifact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? (1): On electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses

Guiraud

Gallégo

Arnold³

et al. 2007

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One possible difference would be in the changes to the auditory neural periphery resulting from the implant surgery. For instance, the electrode array might become encapsulated in fibrous tissue after implantation (Kawano et al, 1998;Li et al, 1999;Walsh et al, 1982). Our study demonstrated the stability in ECAP measurements by comparing the ECAP thresholds intra-operatively and postoperatively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

A comparison of intra- versus post-operatively acquired electrically evoked compound action potentials

Wermeskerken

Olphen

Zanten

2006

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to compare the electrically evoked compound action potentials, intra- versus post-operatively, in cochlear implant patients. In a prospective study twenty-five consecutively implanted adult patients received a multichannel cochlear implant. In all patients, electrically evoked compound action potentials were recorded immediately after cochlear implantation and in a post-operative setting nine months later. The threshold of the electrically evoked compound action potential was determined in both settings. A high success rate (97.4%) was found in the intra-operative setting when recording the electrically evoked compound action potential threshold per patient. The success rate per patient was significantly lower (53.4%) in the post-operative setting. Correlations between the intra- versus the post-operative ECAP thresholds were statistically significant for all electrodes tested. The ECAP thresholds were not significantly different for the two settings. The intra-operative setting is preferable for acquisition of the ECAP threshold.

show abstract

Chronic electrical stimulation of auditory nerve in cat: Physiological and histological results

Cited by 84 publications

References 22 publications

Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses (EABR) and Middle Latency Responses (EMLR) Obtained from Patients with the Nucleus Multichannel Cochlear Implant

Electrically Evoked Auditory Brain Stem Responses (EABR) and Middle Latency Responses (EMLR) Obtained from Patients with the Nucleus Multichannel Cochlear Implant

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? (1): On electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses

A comparison of intra- versus post-operatively acquired electrically evoked compound action potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About