Multiple-Channel Stimulation of the Cochlear Nucleus

To further test the feasibility of a central nervous system auditory prosthesis, the characteristics of the electrically evoked middle latency response were studied in a series of acutely anesthetized pigmented guinea pigs, with multi-channel penetrating cochlear nucleus electrodes placed into the cochlear nucleus under direct visualization. These stimulating electrodes consisted of a silicone substrate, with five stimulating pads each, sputtered with Iridium. Monopolar and bipolar stimulation were used. Threshold, latency, and input-output functions of the electrically evoked middle latency response were studied. Systematic differences were observed, depending on the site and parameters of stimulation. Principally, higher currents were required to produce waves of equal amplitude when the electrodes were closely spaced. For near electrode pairs, the maximum wave amplitudes obtainable within the limits of tissue safety were much lower than for distant electrode pairs. The slope of the growth function curve was steeper for widely spaced electrodes than for adjacent sites. Monopolar stimulation demonstrated maximum wave amplitudes with the lowst current Intensity, implying current spread to the entire cochlear nucleus with this stimulation montage. In some cases, threshold differences were observed, higher thresholds being associated with closely spaced elecrodes. These findings are consistent with simple models of the electric fields expected to be generated by these electrode arrays. The results support the hypothesis that activtalon of subpopulations of auditory brainstem neurons with multi-channel penetrating microelectrodes is possible.

[1]  Francis Kuk,et al.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: Audiologic assessment and predictors of performance , 1988, The Laryngoscope.

[2]  E C Kane,et al.  Synaptic organization in the dorsal cochlear nucleus of the cat: A light and electron microscopic study , 1974 .

[3]  D. I. Smith,et al.  Effects of chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, ketamine, and curare on the auditory middle latency response. , 1987, American journal of otolaryngology.

[4]  M. Falchi,et al.  Auditory brainstem and middle-latency responses in Bell's palsy. , 1987, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[5]  A. Starr,et al.  Brain Stem Potentials Evoked by Electrical Stimulation of the Cochlea in Human Subjects , 1979, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[6]  H. Voigt,et al.  Evidence of inhibitory interactions between neurons in dorsal cochlear nucleus. , 1980, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  K. Kaga,et al.  Evidence for a primary cortical origin of a middle latency auditory evoked potential in cats. , 1980, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[8]  P. Kileny,et al.  Electrically evoked middle-latency auditory potentials in cochlear implant candidates. , 1987, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[9]  G. Clark,et al.  Current Distributions Produced by the Banded Electrode Array: An Experimental Study Conducted with a Tank Model , 1987 .

[10]  G M Clark,et al.  Absolute identification of electric pulse rates and electrode positions by cochlear implant patients. , 1985, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  N. Kraus,et al.  Rate and filter effects on the developing middle-latency response. , 1987, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[12]  J. Miller,et al.  Middle-latency responses. I. Electrical and acoustic excitation. , 1989, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[13]  M. Merzenich,et al.  Multielectrode intracochlear implants. Nerve survival and stimulation patterns. , 1977, Archives of otolaryngology.