4.5 Article

Effects of time after deafening and implantation on guinea pig electrical detection thresholds

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 144, Issue 1-2, Pages 175-186

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0378-5955(00)00066-6

Keywords

guinea pig; cochlear implant; spiral ganglion cell; psychophysics; electrical detection threshold; time; aminoglycoside

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC00011, DC03389] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Changes in detection threshold level as a function of time after deafening and implantation have been described previously in macaque [Pfingst, 1990] and human [Skinner et al., 1995] cochlear implant subjects. Characterization of the mechanisms underlying these changes will contribute to our understanding of the anatomical and physiological factors affecting electrical stimulus detection. In addition. understanding the time course of early threshold changes is essential to the interpretation of acute physiological studies of cochlear implants. To better characterize time-dependent threshold changes, we monitored changes in guinea pig psychophysical electrical detection thresholds with time after deafening and cochlear implantation. Threshold levels for 100 Hz sinusoidal bursts were initially unstable over the first 30 days post-surgery (DPS), after which thresholds stabilized. At longer intervals (> 100 DPS), increases(> 10 dB) in threshold level were observed for 100 Hz sinusoids in three of 11 cases. These changes were transient in one case and long-term in two cases. The time course of threshold change, both early and late, could not be explained on the basis of changes in spiral ganglion cell survival. The guinea pig seems to be an ideal preparation for studies of this nature, because threshold changes are similar in type, but accelerated in lime course, relative to those observed in primates. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available