These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials.
    Author: Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Hay-McCutcheon MJ, Robinson BK, Nourski KV, Jeng FC.
    Journal: Hear Res; 2004 Dec; 198(1-2):75-86. PubMed ID: 15567605.
    Abstract:
    With experimental animals, the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) can be recorded from multiple sites (e.g., round window, intracranial and intracochlear sites). However, human ECAPs are typically recorded from intracochlear electrodes of the implanted array. To bridge this difference, we obtained ECAPs from cats using both intracochlear and nerve-trunk recording sites. We also sought to determine how recording the site influences the acquired evoked potential and how those differences may provide insight into basic excitation properties. In the main experiment, ECAPs were recorded from four acutely deafened cats after implanting a Nucleus-style banded electrode array. Potentials were recorded from an electrode positioned on the nerve trunk and an intracochlear electrode. We manipulated stimulus level, electrode configuration (monopolar vs bipolar) and stimulus polarity, variables that influence the site of excitation. Intracochlear ECAPs were found to be an order of magnitude greater than those obtained with the nerve-trunk electrode. Also, compared with the nerve-trunk potentials, the intracochlear ECAPs more closely resembled those obtained from humans in that latencies were shorter and the waveform morphology was typically biphasic (a negative peak followed by a positive peak). With anodic monophasic stimuli, the ECAP had a unique positive-to-negative morphology which we attributed to antidromic action potentials resulting from a relatively central site of excitation. We also collected intracochlear ECAPs from twenty Nucleus 24 implant users. Compared with the feline ECAPs, the human potentials had smaller amplitudes and longer latencies. It is not clear what underlies these differences, although several factors are considered.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]