Recognizing the journey and celebrating the achievement of cochlear implants

Zeng, Fan‐Gang; Canlon, Barbara

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2015.02.003

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Multichannel electric cochlear implants (CIs) are highly successful in rehabilitating severely‐to‐profoundly hearing‐impaired adults and children [1,2]. The devices are so effective that, as of December 2012, approximately 324,200 deaf have received a CI worldwide.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Channel Interaction During Infrared Light Stimulation in the Cochlea

Agarwal

Tan

et al. 2021

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives The number of perceptually independent channels to encode acoustic information is limited in contemporary cochlear implants (CIs) because of the current spread in the tissue. It has been suggested that neighboring electrodes have to be separated in humans by a distance of more than 2 mm to eliminate significant overlap of the electric current fields and subsequent interaction between the channels. It has also been argued that an increase in the number of independent channels could improve CI user performance in challenging listening environments, such as speech in noise, tonal languages, or music perception. Optical stimulation has been suggested as an alternative modality for neural stimulation because it is spatially selective. This study reports the results of experiments designed to quantify the interaction between neighboring optical sources in the cochlea during stimulation with infrared radiation. Study Design/Materials and Methods In seven adult albino guinea pigs, a forward masking method was used to quantify the interaction between two neighboring optical sources during stimulation. Two optical fibers were placed through cochleostomies into the scala tympani of the basal cochlear turn. The radiation beams were directed towards different neuron populations along the spiral ganglion. Optically evoked compound action potentials were recorded for different radiant energies and distances between the optical fibers. The outcome measure was the radiant energy of a masker pulse delivered 3 milliseconds before a probe pulse to reduce the response evoked by the probe pulse by 3 dB. Results were compared for different distances between the fibers placed along the cochlea. Results The energy required to reduce the probe's response by 3 dB increased by 20.4 dB/mm and by 26.0 dB/octave. The inhibition was symmetrical for the masker placed basal to the probe (base‐to‐apex) and the masker placed apical to the probe (apex‐to‐base). Conclusion The interaction between neighboring optical sources during infrared laser stimulation is less than the interaction between neighboring electrical contacts during electrical stimulation. Previously published data for electrical stimulation reported an average current spread in human and cat cochleae of 2.8 dB/mm. With the increased number of independent channels for optical stimulation, it is anticipated that speech and music performance will improve. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Channel Interaction During Infrared Light Stimulation in the Cochlea

Agarwal

Tan

et al. 2021

Lasers Surg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The advent of cochlear implants has dramatically changed the landscape of auditory habilitation and rehabilitation for more than 350,000 children and adults with hearing loss worldwide (Zeng & Canlon, 2015). This achievement was recognized by the 2013 Lasker-DeBakey Clinical Research Award (Hampton, 2013;Holmes, 2013;Niparko, 2013;Roland & Tobey, 2013;Williams, 2013), the 2015 National Academy of Engineering Russ Prize (Clark, 2014;Hochmair, Hochmair, Nopp, Waller, & Jolly, 2014;Merzenich, 2015;Wilson, 2014), and the 2018 Shambough Prize for the developers of the multichannel cochlear implant.…”

Section: Clinical Mri and Dti Scans Of People With Hearing Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural neuroimaging of the altered brain stemming from pediatric and adolescent hearing loss—Scientific and clinical challenges

Ratnanather

2019

WIREs Mechanisms of Disease

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a spurt in structural neuroimaging studies of the effect of hearing loss on the brain. Specifically, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) technologies provide an opportunity to quantify changes in gray and white matter structures at the macroscopic scale. To date, there have been 32 MRI and 23 DTI studies that have analyzed structural differences accruing from pre-or peri-lingual pediatric hearing loss with congenital or early onset etiology and postlingual hearing loss in pre-to-late adolescence. Additionally, there have been 15 prospective clinical structural neuroimaging studies of children and adolescents being evaluated for cochlear implants. The results of the 70 studies are summarized in two figures and three tables. Plastic changes in the brain are seen to be multifocal rather than diffuse, that is, differences are consistent across regions implicated in the hearing, speech and language networks regardless of modes of communication and amplification. Structures in that play an important role in cognition are affected to a lesser extent. A limitation of these studies is the emphasis on volumetric measures and on homogeneous groups of subjects with hearing loss.It is suggested that additional measures of morphometry and connectivity could contribute to a greater understanding of the effect of hearing loss on the brain. Then an interpretation of the observed macroscopic structural differences is given. This is followed by discussion of how structural imaging can be combined with functional imaging to provide biomarkers for longitudinal tracking of amplification.

show abstract

“…One reason for the difficulty is that cochlear implants restore audibility but do not restore normal hearing. 5 Another reason is that the second-time hearing handicap is likely central, reflecting brain changes in response to the peripheral hearing loss. These changes may produce a wide range of abnormalities from impaired suprathreshold auditory processing to increased cognitive loads and even tinnitus or hyperacusis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%