38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Electric stimulation of the auditory nerve via a cochlear implant (CI) has been observed to suppress tinnitus, but parameters of an effective electric stimulus remain unexplored. Here we used CI research processors to systematically vary pulse rate, electrode place, and current amplitude of electric stimuli, and measure their effects on tinnitus loudness and stimulus loudness as a function of stimulus duration. Thirteen tinnitus subjects who used CIs were tested, with nine (70%) being “Responders” who achieved greater than 30% tinnitus loudness reduction in response to at least one stimulation condition and the remaining four (30%) being “Non-Responders” who had less than 30% tinnitus loudness reduction in response to any stimulus condition tested. Despite large individual variability, several interesting observations were made between stimulation parameters, tinnitus characteristics, and tinnitus suppression. If a subject's tinnitus was suppressed by one stimulus, then it was more likely to be suppressed by another stimulus. If the tinnitus contained a “pulsating” component, then it would be more likely suppressed by a given combination of stimulus parameters than tinnitus without these components. There was also a disassociation between the subjects' clinical speech processor and our research processor in terms of their effectiveness in tinnitus suppression. Finally, an interesting dichotomy was observed between loudness adaptation to electric stimuli and their effects on tinnitus loudness, with the Responders exhibiting higher degrees of loudness adaptation than the Non-Responders. Although the mechanisms underlying these observations remain to be resolved, their clinical implications are clear. When using a CI to manage tinnitus, the clinical processor that is optimized for speech perception needs to be customized for optimal tinnitus suppression.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise.

          A large set of sentence materials, chosen for their uniformity in length and representation of natural speech, has been developed for the measurement of sentence speech reception thresholds (sSRTs). The mean-squared level of each digitally recorded sentence was adjusted to equate intelligibility when presented in spectrally matched noise to normal-hearing listeners. These materials were cast into 25 phonemically balanced lists of ten sentences for adaptive measurement of sentence sSRTs. The 95% confidence interval for these measurements is +/- 2.98 dB for sSRTs in quiet and +/- 2.41 dB for sSRTs in noise, as defined by the variability of repeated measures with different lists. Average sSRTs in quiet were 23.91 dB(A). Average sSRTs in 72 dB(A) noise were 69.08 dB(A), or -2.92 dB signal/noise ratio. Low-pass filtering increased sSRTs slightly in quiet and noise as the 4- and 8-kHz octave bands were eliminated. Much larger increases in SRT occurred when the 2-kHz octave band was eliminated, and bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. Reliability was not degraded substantially until bandwidth dropped below 2.5 kHz. The statistical reliability and efficiency of the test suit it to practical applications in which measures of speech intelligibility are required.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants.

            Speech recognition was measured as a function of spectral resolution (number of spectral channels) and speech-to-noise ratio in normal-hearing (NH) and cochlear-implant (CI) listeners. Vowel, consonant, word, and sentence recognition were measured in five normal-hearing listeners, ten listeners with the Nucleus-22 cochlear implant, and nine listeners with the Advanced Bionics Clarion cochlear implant. Recognition was measured as a function of the number of spectral channels (noise bands or electrodes) at signal-to-noise ratios of + 15, + 10, +5, 0 dB, and in quiet. Performance with three different speech processing strategies (SPEAK, CIS, and SAS) was similar across all conditions, and improved as the number of electrodes increased (up to seven or eight) for all conditions. For all noise levels, vowel and consonant recognition with the SPEAK speech processor did not improve with more than seven electrodes, while for normal-hearing listeners, performance continued to increase up to at least 20 channels. Speech recognition on more difficult speech materials (word and sentence recognition) showed a marginally significant increase in Nucleus-22 listeners from seven to ten electrodes. The average implant score on all processing strategies was poorer than scores of NH listeners with similar processing. However, the best CI scores were similar to the normal-hearing scores for that condition (up to seven channels). CI listeners with the highest performance level increased in performance as the number of electrodes increased up to seven, while CI listeners with low levels of speech recognition did not increase in performance as the number of electrodes was increased beyond four. These results quantify the effect of number of spectral channels on speech recognition in noise and demonstrate that most CI subjects are not able to fully utilize the spectral information provided by the number of electrodes used in their implant.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ringing ears: the neuroscience of tinnitus.

              Tinnitus is a phantom sound (ringing of the ears) that affects quality of life for millions around the world and is associated in most cases with hearing impairment. This symposium will consider evidence that deafferentation of tonotopically organized central auditory structures leads to increased neuron spontaneous firing rates and neural synchrony in the hearing loss region. This region covers the frequency spectrum of tinnitus sounds, which are optimally suppressed following exposure to band-limited noise covering the same frequencies. Cross-modal compensations in subcortical structures may contribute to tinnitus and its modulation by jaw-clenching and eye movements. Yet many older individuals with impaired hearing do not have tinnitus, possibly because age-related changes in inhibitory circuits are better preserved. A brain network involving limbic and other nonauditory regions is active in tinnitus and may be driven when spectrotemporal information conveyed by the damaged ear does not match that predicted by central auditory processing.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Front Syst Neurosci
                Front Syst Neurosci
                Front. Syst. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5137
                25 January 2012
                29 March 2012
                2012
                : 6
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1] 1simpleDepartment of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA, USA
                [2] 2simpleDepartment of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of California Irvine, Orange CA, USA
                Author notes

                Edited by: Jos J Eggermont, University of Calgary, Canada

                Reviewed by: David Baguley, Cambridge University Hospital, UK; Katrien Vermeire, University of Innsbruck, Austria; Andreas Buechner, Medical University of Hannover, Germany

                *Correspondence: Janice E. Chang and Fan-Gang Zeng, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Hearing and Speech Lab, University of California, Irvine, 110 Medical Science E, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. e-mail: janicec@ 123456uci.edu , fzeng@ 123456uci.edu
                Article
                10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019
                3315113
                22479238
                7756a28b-d1f7-4839-96be-e99ea9e79cfb
                Copyright © 2012 Chang and Zeng.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.

                History
                : 10 January 2012
                : 13 March 2012
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 5, Equations: 0, References: 47, Pages: 11, Words: 7595
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Original Research Article

                Neurosciences
                cochlear implant,tinnitus,loudness adaptation,electric stimulation
                Neurosciences
                cochlear implant, tinnitus, loudness adaptation, electric stimulation

                Comments

                Comment on this article