CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Hearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsNeuroscience and Neural Engineering

Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival

Open access
Prado-Guitierrez, Pavel, Fewster, Leonie M., Heasman, John M., McKay, Colette M., Shepherd, Robert K.·2006·Hearing Research
DOI 10.1016/j.heares.2006.03.006PMC PMC1831823
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We investigated the effect of pulse duration (PD) and interphase-gap (IPG) on the electrically-evoked auditory brain stem response (EABR) and viiith nerve compound action potential (ECAP) of deafened guinea pigs in order to test the hypothesis that the extent of change in these neural responses is affected by the histological status of the auditory nerve. Fifteen guinea pigs were deafened by co-administration of kanamycin and furosemide. Animals were acutely implanted with an 8-band electrode array at 1, 4 or 12 weeks following deafening. EABR and ECAP input/output functions were recorded in response to charge balanced biphasic current pulses. We determined the change in current required to equalize; (i) the EABR amplitude when the duration of the current pulse was doubled (104-208 micros/phase); and (ii) the EABR and ECAP amplitudes when the IPG was increased from 8 to 58 micros using a 104 micros/phase current pulse. Following the completion of each experiment the cochleae were examined quantitatively for spiral ganglion neuron survival. As expected, the current level required to evoke an EABR with equal amplitude was lower when the animal was stimulated with current pulses of 208 compared with 104 micros/phase. Moreover, the current level required to evoke EABR/ECAPs with equal amplitude was lower when current pulses had an IPG of 58 versus 8 micros. Importantly, there was a reduction in the magnitude of this effect with greater neural loss; the reduced efficacy of changing both PD and IPG on these electrically-evoked potentials was statistically correlated with neural survival. These results may provide a tool for investigating the contribution of auditory nerve survival to clinical performance among cochlear implant subjects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.heares.2006.03.006

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prado-Guitierrez et al. compared pulse widths of 104 μs and 208 μs in stimulation of the cochlea in guinea pigs and noted a decrease in current level required for the longer pulse duration, but this decrease was not proportional to the delivered charge, and therefore longer pulses were deemed less efficient in terms of injected charge.

    “Similarly, Prado-Guitierrez et al. compared pulse widths of 104 μs and 208 μs in stimulation of the cochlea in guinea pigs [81]. They noted a decrease in current level required for the longer pulse duration, however, this decrease was not proportional to the delivered charge, and therefore longer pulses were deemed less efficient in terms of injected charge.”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [81]

  • Prado-Guitierrez et al. observed that an increase of the inter-phase delay from 8 μs to 58 μs evoked larger compound action potentials, and auditory brain stem responses, when stimulating the auditory nerve in guinea pigs.

    “Similarly, Prado-Guitierrez et al. observed that an increase of the inter-phase delay from 8 μs to 58 μs evoked larger compound action potentials, and auditory brain stem responses, when stimulating the auditory nerve in guinea pigs [81].”

    From Safety of long-term electrical peripheral nerve stimulation: review of the state of the art (2019) · cites this paper as [81]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Prado-Guitierrez, P., Fewster, L. M., Heasman, J. M., McKay, C. M., & Shepherd, R. K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Cochlear (Australia) (AU)
  • Bionics Institute (AU)
Corresponding author
Shepherd, Robert K.
ORCID
Venue
Hearing Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-05
Volume
215
Issue
1-2
Pages
47-55
ISSN
0378-5955 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.heares.2006.03.006
PMC
PMC1831823
OpenAlex
W2171073672
Cited by
173
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (N01 DC31005, N01 DC031005)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neural Engineering
Keywords
electrically evoked auditory brainstem response, electrically evoked compound action potential, pulse duration, spiral ganglion neurons, cochlear implantation, deafness, guinea pig, input-output function
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Animals, Cochlear Nerve, Deafness, Electric Stimulation, Guinea Pigs, Random Allocation, Spiral Ganglion, Time Factors, Multivariate Analysis, Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review