The Effect of Pulse Polarity on Neural Response of the Electrically Stimulated Cochlear Nerve in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency and Children With Normal-Sized Cochlear Nerves.
Journal
Ear and hearing
ISSN: 1538-4667
Titre abrégé: Ear Hear
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8005585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
7
3
2020
medline:
8
7
2021
entrez:
7
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to (1) investigate the effect of pulse polarity on neural response of the electrically stimulated cochlear nerve in children with cochlear nerve deficiency (CND) and children with normal-sized cochlear nerves and (2) compare the size of the pulse polarity effect between these two subject groups. The experimental and control group included 31 children with CND and 31 children with normal-sized cochlear nerves, respectively. For each study participant, evoked compound action potential (eCAP) input/output (I/O) functions for anodic-leading and cathodic-leading biphasic stimuli were measured at three electrode locations across the electrode array. The dependent variables of interest included the eCAP amplitude measured at the maximum comfortable level of the anodic stimulus, the lowest level that could evoke an eCAP (i.e., the eCAP threshold), the slope of the eCAP I/O function estimated based on linear regression, the negative-peak (i.e., N1) latency of the eCAP, as well as the size of the pulse polarity effect on these eCAP measurements. Generalized linear mixed effect models were used to compare the eCAP amplitude, the eCAP threshold, the slope of the eCAP I/O function, and the N1 latency evoked by the anodic-leading stimulus with those measured for the cathodic-leading stimulus for children with CND and children with normal-sized cochlear nerves. Generalized linear mixed effect models were also used to compare the size of the pulse polarity effect on the eCAP between these two study groups. The one-tailed Spearman correlation test was used to assess the potential correlation between the pulse phase duration and the difference in N1 latency measured for different pulse polarities. Compared with children who had normal-sized cochlear nerves, children with CND had reduced eCAP amplitudes, elevated eCAP thresholds, flatter eCAP I/O functions, and prolonged N1 latencies. The anodic-leading stimulus led to higher eCAP amplitudes, lower eCAP thresholds, and shorter N1 latencies than the cathodic-leading stimulus in both study groups. Steeper eCAP I/O functions were recorded for the anodic-leading stimulus than those measured for the cathodic-leading stimulus in children with CND, but not in children with normal-sized cochlear nerves. Group differences in the size of the pulse polarity effect on the eCAP amplitude, the eCAP threshold, or the N1 latency were not statistically significant. Similar to the normal-sized cochlear nerve, the hypoplastic cochlear nerve is more sensitive to the anodic-leading than to the cathodic-leading stimulus. Results of this study do not provide sufficient evidence for proving the idea that the pulse polarity effect can provide an indication for local neural health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32141933
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000854
pii: 00003446-202009000-00023
pmc: PMC7879579
mid: NIHMS1592907
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1306-1319Subventions
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC016038
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC017846
Pays : United States
Références
Biomed Eng Online. 2009 Dec 16;8:40
pubmed: 20015362
Acta Otolaryngol. 1988 May-Jun;105(5-6):398-402
pubmed: 3400441
Hear Res. 1995 Oct;90(1-2):192-201
pubmed: 8974997
Otol Neurotol. 2010 Sep;31(7):1041-8
pubmed: 20634770
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Jun;37(5):438-45
pubmed: 27050647
Neuroscience. 1999 Mar;89(2):335-46
pubmed: 10077317
Ear Hear. 2018 Mar/Apr;39(2):344-358
pubmed: 28885234
Ear Hear. 1999 Feb;20(1):45-59
pubmed: 10037065
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2016 Jun;17(3):237-52
pubmed: 26926152
Laryngoscope. 2006 Aug;116(8):1310-20
pubmed: 16885730
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Apr;15(2):187-202
pubmed: 24469861
J Neurosci Methods. 2012 Mar 30;205(1):212-20
pubmed: 22202890
Hear Res. 2016 Nov;341:50-65
pubmed: 27521841
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006 Sep;7(3):253-66
pubmed: 16715356
Ear Hear. 2020 Jul/Aug;41(4):918-934
pubmed: 31688319
Trends Amplif. 2006 Dec;10(4):175-200
pubmed: 17172547
Ann Anat. 2001 Jan;183(1):61-6
pubmed: 11206984
Ear Hear. 2017 May/Jun;38(3):332-343
pubmed: 28045836
Hear Res. 2006 May;215(1-2):47-55
pubmed: 16644157
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010 Nov;31(10):1972-9
pubmed: 20595372
J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 Nov;144(5):2751
pubmed: 30522299
Hear Res. 2015 Apr;322:77-88
pubmed: 25261772
J Acoust Soc Am. 1990 Sep;88(3):1385-91
pubmed: 2229673
Anat Sci Int. 2007 Sep;82(3):156-63
pubmed: 17867342
Hear Res. 2015 Dec;330(Pt A):98-105
pubmed: 26209185
Ear Hear. 2020 Jan/Feb;41(1):194-207
pubmed: 31124793
Hear Res. 2018 Mar;359:50-63
pubmed: 29307495
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2013 Jun;14(3):359-77
pubmed: 23479187
Hear Res. 2001 Mar;153(1-2):43-63
pubmed: 11223296
Hear Res. 2013 Dec;306:123-30
pubmed: 24161948
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2002;25:51-101
pubmed: 12052904
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 7;7(1):4884
pubmed: 28687782
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2019 Aug;20(4):415-430
pubmed: 30949879
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2019 Aug;20(4):431-448
pubmed: 31161338
Hear Res. 1997 Jun;108(1-2):112-44
pubmed: 9213127
Ear Hear. 2018 Mar/Apr;39(2):238-250
pubmed: 28678078
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2017 Jun;18(3):513-527
pubmed: 28138791
Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jul;32(5):748-55
pubmed: 21758021
Hear Res. 2004 Feb;188(1-2):104-16
pubmed: 14759574
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2008 Jun;9(2):241-51
pubmed: 18288537
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997 Sep;117(3 Pt 1):220-8
pubmed: 9334769
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Apr;15(2):293-304
pubmed: 24477546
Hear Res. 2018 Apr;361:121-137
pubmed: 29496363
J Anat. 2004 Feb;204(2):71-92
pubmed: 15032915
Hear Res. 1994 Jul;78(1):11-26
pubmed: 7961173
Am J Otol. 1998 May;19(3):320-7
pubmed: 9596182
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2017 Dec;18(6):731-750
pubmed: 28776202
Ear Hear. 2016 Jul-Aug;37(4):397-411
pubmed: 26655913
Hear Res. 2010 Oct 1;269(1-2):146-61
pubmed: 20600739
Laryngoscope. 1987 Mar;97(3 Pt 2 Suppl 40):2-14
pubmed: 3821363
J Neurosci Methods. 2012 Mar 30;205(1):202-11
pubmed: 22209768
Ear Hear. 2002 Jun;23(3):184-97
pubmed: 12072611
Hear Res. 2001 Mar;153(1-2):64-79
pubmed: 11223297
Hear Res. 1999 Apr;130(1-2):197-218
pubmed: 10320109
Hear Res. 1998 May;119(1-2):142-54
pubmed: 9641327