Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16891844

Physiological basis for cochlear and auditory brainstem implants.

Abstract

Cochlear implants bypass functions of the cochlea that have been regarded to be fundamental for discrimination of the frequency (or spectrum). Frequency discrimination is essential for discrimination of sounds, including speech sounds, and the normal auditory system is assumed to make use of both (power) spectral and temporal information for frequency discrimination. Spectral information is represented by the place on the basilar membrane that generates the largest amplitude of vibration on the basilar membrane. Evidence has been presented that the temporal representation of frequency is more robust than the place representation and thus regarded more important for speech discrimination. The fact that some cochlear implants provide good speech discrimination using only information about the energy in a few spectral bands seems to contradict these studies. In that way, frequency discrimination may be similar to trichromatic color vision, which is based on the energy in only three different spectral bands of light, accomplished by different color-sensitive pigments in the cones of the retina. Cochlear nucleus implants (ABIs) also bypass the auditory nerve, which does not perform any processing. Therefore, it may be expected that ABIs are equally efficient as cochlear implants. However, experience from the use of ABIs in patients with bilateral vestibular schwannoma has not been encouraging, but recent studies of the use of ABIs in patients with other causes of injuries to the auditory nerve have shown similar speech discrimination as achieved with modern cochlear implants. Cochlear implants and ABIs are successful in providing speech discrimination because of redundancy in the processing in the ear, redundancy of the speech signal and because the auditory nervous system has a high degree of plasticity. Expression of neural plasticity makes the auditory nervous system adapt to the change in demands of processing of the information provided by cochlear implants.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aage R Møller. 2006. Physiological basis for cochlear and auditory brainstem implants.. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094653

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Auditory midbrain implant: a combined approach for vestibular schwannoma surgery and device implantation.

HYPOTHESIS: The lateral suboccipital approach is a well-established route for safe removal of vestibular schwannomas in neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2) patients. The goal of this study was to assess if this approach can be extended to a lateral supracerebellar infratentorial approach to enable insertion of an auditory midbrain implant (AMI) penetrating array along the tonotopic gradient of the inferior colliculus central nucleus (ICC). BACKGROUND: The AMI is a new auditory prosthesis designed for penetrating stimulation of the ICC in patients with neural deafness. The initial candidates are NF2 patients who, because of the growth and/or surgical removal of bilateral acoustic neuromas, develop neural deafness and are unable to benefit from cochlear implants. The ideal surgical approach in NF2 patients must first enable safe removal of vestibular schwannomas and then provide sufficient exposure of the midbrain for AMI implantation. METHODS: This study was performed on formalin-fixed and fresh cadaver specimens. Computed tomography scan and magnetic resonance imaging were used to study the heads of the specimens and for surgical navigation. RESULTS: The lateral suboccipital craniotomy enabled sufficient exposure of the cerebellopontine angle and internal auditory canal for tumor removal. It could then be extended to a lateral supracerebellar infratentorial approach that provided good exposure of the dorsolateral aspect of the tentorial hiatus and mesencephalon for implantation of the AMI along the tonotopic gradient of the ICC. This approach did not endanger the trochlear nerve or any major midline venous structures in the quadrigeminal cistern. CONCLUSION: This modified lateral suboccipital approach ensures safe removal of large vestibular schwannomas and provides sufficient exposure of the inferior colliculus for ideal AMI implantation.

Auditory Brain Stem Implants↗

Auditory brainstem implant in a child with severely ossified cochlea.

OBJECTIVE: The hearing outcome after implanting a severely ossified cochlea has always been less satisfactory than implanting a patent one. The aim of our study is to present a case where brainstem implantation was successfully performed as an alternative to cochlear implantation in a child with bilateral severe ossification of the cochlea. STUDY DESIGN: Case presentation. This study was conducted at Gruppo Otologico, Rome, Italy, a private referral center for neurotology and skull base surgery. METHODS: The subject of our study was a 12-year-old female child with postmeningitic deafness and bilaterally ossified cochleae. This case is the first brainstem implantation performed at our center with the indication of severe ossification of the cochlea. RESULTS: Successful brainstem implantation of a device was carried out, and the hearing of the patient was restored to the degree that she can freely use the telephone after 8 months of implantation. CONCLUSION: Although more cases are needed before establishing the exact outcome of brainstem implantation in cases of deafness in the presence of severe bilateral cochlear ossification, preliminary results show the superiority of brainstem implants to conventional or even customized cochlear implants.

Auditory Brain Stem Implants↗