| Title |
Chronic Deafness Degrades Temporal Acuity in the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Pathway
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10162-018-0679-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John C. Middlebrooks |
| Abstract |
Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve with a penetrating intraneural (IN) electrode in acutely deafened cats produces much more restricted spread of excitation than is obtained in that preparation with a conventional cochlear implant (CI) as reported by Middlebrooks and Snyder (J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 8:258-279, 2007). That suggests that a future auditory prosthesis employing IN stimulation might offer human patients greater frequency selectivity than is available with a present-day CI. Nevertheless, it is a concern that the electrical field produced by an IN electrode might be too restricted to produce adequate stimulation of the partially depopulated auditory nerve of a deaf patient. We evaluated this by testing responses to IN and CI stimulation in adult-deafened cats. Activation of the auditory pathway was monitored by recording from the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus (ICC). Cats deaf for 153-277 days exhibited a ~ 30 % loss of auditory nerve fibers compared to cats deaf for < 18 h. Contrary to our concern, measures of thresholds and dynamic ranges showed no significant deafness-related impairment of excitation by IN or CN stimulation. Surprisingly, however, temporal acuity decreased dramatically in these adult-deafened cats, as demonstrated by a marked decrease in the maximum rate of electrical cochlear stimulation to which ICC neurons synchronized to IN or CI stimulation. For instance, half of ICC neurons synchronized to IN stimulation up to 203 pulses per second (pps) in acute deafness, whereas that number dropped to 79 pps for chronic deafness. Such a loss of temporal acuity might contribute to the poor sensitivity to temporal fine structure that has been reported in human CI users. Seemingly, the degraded temporal acuity that we observed in cats was even worse than the fine-structure sensitivity of human CI users, suggesting that most patients experience some improvement of temporal acuity resulting from restoration of patterned auditory nerve stimulation by a CI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 6 | 20% |
| Engineering | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,572,005
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
#309
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,686
of 329,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,753 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them