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: Comparison of auditory responses determined by acoustic stimulation and by mechanical round window stimulation at equivalent stapes velocities.
    Author: Lee J, Seong K, Lee SH, Lee KY, Cho JH.
    Journal: Hear Res; 2014 Aug; 314():65-71. PubMed ID: 24768763.
    Abstract:
    Active middle ear implants (AMEIs) have been studied to overcome the limitations of conventional hearing aids such as howling, occlusion, and social discrimination. AMEIs usually drive the oval window (OW) by means of transmitting vibrational force through the ossicles and the vibrational force corresponding to sound is generated from a mechanical actuator. Recently, round window (RW) stimulation using an AMEI such as a floating mass transducer (FMT) to deliver sound to the cochlea has been introduced and hearing improvement in clinical use has been reported. Although previous studies demonstrated that the auditory response to RW stimulation was comparable to a sound-evoked auditory response, few studies have investigated the quantification of the physiologic performance of an AMEI through RW stimulation on the inner ear in vivo. There is no established relationship between the cochlear responses and mechanical stimulation to RW. The aim of this study is to assess the physiologic response in RW stimulation by an AMEI. The transferred energy through the RW to the inner ear could estimate the response corresponding to acoustic stimulation in order to quantify the AMEI output in the ossicular chain or OW stimulation. The parameters of the auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) were measured and compared based on stapes velocities similar enough to be regarded as the same for acoustic stimulation to the external auditory canal (EAC) and mechanical stimulation to the RW in an in vivo system. In conclusion, this study showed that the amplitudes and latencies of the ABRs of acoustic and RW stimulation showed significant differences at comparable stapes velocities in an in vivo system. These differences in the ABR amplitudes and latencies reflect different output functions of the cochlea in response to different stimulation pathways. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new method for quantifying the output of the cochlea in the case of RW stimulation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]