Miller A L
Kresge Hearing Research Institute, 1301 E. Ann Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0506, USA.
Hear Res. 2001 Jan;151(1-2):1-14. doi: 10.1016/s0378-5955(00)00226-4.
For almost 10 years, chronic stimulation has been known to affect spiral ganglion cell (SGC) survival in the deaf ear. However, the reported effects of chronic stimulation vary across preparations and studies. In this review, the effects of chronic stimulation on the deafened auditory periphery are examined, and variables that may impact on the efficacy of chronic stimulation are identified. The effects of deafening on the unstimulated peripheral and central auditory system are also described, as the deafened, unstimulated system is the canvas upon which stimulation-mediated effects are imposed. Discrepancies in the effects of chronic stimulation across studies may be attributable in large part to the combined effects of the deafening method and the post-deafening delay prior to chronic stimulation, which vary across studies. Emphasis is placed on the need to consider the natural progression of SGC loss following deafening in the absence of chronic stimulation, as the rate of SGC loss almost certainly affects both the efficacy of stimulation, and the impact of any delay between deafening and initiation of stimulation. The differences across preparations complicate direct comparison of protective efficacy of stimulation. At the same time, these differences can be used to our advantage, aiding characterization of the effects of different factors on the efficacy of chronic stimulation as a neuroprotective intervention.
近十年来,人们已经知道慢性刺激会影响聋耳中螺旋神经节细胞(SGC)的存活。然而,慢性刺激的报道效果在不同的实验准备和研究中有所不同。在这篇综述中,我们研究了慢性刺激对致聋听觉外周的影响,并确定了可能影响慢性刺激效果的变量。还描述了致聋对未受刺激的外周和中枢听觉系统的影响,因为未受刺激的致聋系统是施加刺激介导效应的基础。不同研究中慢性刺激效果的差异在很大程度上可能归因于致聋方法和慢性刺激前致聋后延迟的综合影响,这些因素在不同研究中各不相同。重点强调了在没有慢性刺激的情况下,需要考虑致聋后SGC损失的自然进程,因为SGC损失的速度几乎肯定会影响刺激的效果,以及致聋与刺激开始之间任何延迟的影响。不同实验准备之间的差异使得直接比较刺激的保护效果变得复杂。同时,这些差异可以为我们所用,有助于表征不同因素对慢性刺激作为一种神经保护干预措施效果的影响。