Cortical responses to anodal and cathodal electrical stimulation of the tongue in the fluid-licking rat

1984 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 249 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A.W.M. Weijnen ◽  
G. Brozek
NeuroImage ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 743-763 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Dowman ◽  
T. Darcey ◽  
H. Barkan ◽  
V. Thadani ◽  
D. Roberts

2014 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 1077-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig A. Atencio ◽  
Jonathan Y. Shih ◽  
Christoph E. Schreiner ◽  
Steven W. Cheung

Cochlear implant electrical stimulation of the auditory system to rehabilitate deafness has been remarkably successful. Its deployment requires both an intact auditory nerve and a suitably patent cochlear lumen. When disease renders prerequisite conditions impassable, such as in neurofibromatosis type II and cochlear obliterans, alternative treatment targets are considered. Electrical stimulation of the cochlear nucleus and midbrain in humans has delivered encouraging clinical outcomes, buttressing the promise of central auditory prostheses to mitigate deafness in those who are not candidates for cochlear implantation. In this study we explored another possible implant target: the auditory thalamus. In anesthetized cats, we first presented pure tones to determine frequency preferences of thalamic and cortical sites. We then electrically stimulated tonotopically organized thalamic sites while recording from primary auditory cortical sites using a multichannel recording probe. Cathode-leading biphasic thalamic stimulation thresholds that evoked cortical responses were much lower than published accounts of cochlear and midbrain stimulation. Cortical activation dynamic ranges were similar to those reported for cochlear stimulation, but they were narrower than those found through midbrain stimulation. Our results imply that thalamic stimulation can activate auditory cortex at low electrical current levels and suggest an auditory thalamic implant may be a viable central auditory prosthesis.


Acute Pain ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
R. Dowman ◽  
T. Darcey ◽  
H. Barkan ◽  
V. Thadani ◽  
D. Roberts

1962 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Doty ◽  
Frances Ross Grimm

1973 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 473-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Walloch ◽  
David DeWeese ◽  
Robert Brummett ◽  
Jack Vernon

In the guinea pig the effects of electrical stimulation of the inner ear were measured by recording the evoked potentials at the auditory cortex. The cortical evoked responses to electrical stimuli greatly resembled those resulting from auditory stimuli in the same ears. The similarity was in wave shape, latency, duration, sharpness of thresholds, etc. It was also possible to produce evoked cortical responses when the electrical stimuli were delivered to ears suffering from severe acoustic trauma. These ears were so traumatized by acoustic over-stimulation that they were totally unresponsive to sound. In addition, it was possible to produce electrically evoked cortical responses in ears suffering from drug induced damage. The damage was of sufficient long standing as to produce extensive degeneration in the spiral ganglion. The damage was verified histologically and was severe enough to produce a 90% loss of the spiral ganglion cells. Similar electrical stimulation has been carried out in one human subject with normal hearing. Using sinusoidal electrical currents of approximately 10–100 microamperes, hearing sensations were produced only for stimulus frequencies between 4,000 Hz and 10,000 Hz. The intent had been to place a chronic electrode on the round window membrane of a normal human ear. When the same electrode was used to record the alternating current (a.c.) cochlear potential the resulting data were so insensitive as to suggest that the electrode placement had been less than ideal. Exploration revealed the electrode to have been on the floor of the fossula of the cochlea fenestra. A repeat procedure, with improved visualization, located a new chronic electrode on the round window membrane. Recordings and stimulations are currently in progress with that electrode.


2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 016006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry J Halupka ◽  
Mohit N Shivdasani ◽  
Shaun L Cloherty ◽  
David B Grayden ◽  
Yan T Wong ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document