Kileny P R, Zwolan T A, Zimmerman-Phillips S, Kemink J L
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor.
Ear Hear. 1992 Oct;13(5):294-9. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199210000-00006.
We compared within-subjects electrical thresholds and dynamic ranges obtained with direct round-window and transtympanic promontory stimulation carried out preoperatively in 12 patients who were candidates for a cochlear implant. Square waves with frequencies of 50, 100, 200, and 400 Hz were delivered in a 50% duty cycle to both sites in each patient. With the exception of threshold at 50 Hz (promontory thresholds were lower than round-window thresholds), there were no statistically significant differences for either thresholds or dynamic ranges between the two sites of stimulation. There was a general trend for round-window thresholds to be lower and dynamic ranges larger, especially for the higher frequencies of stimulation. Mean threshold slopes for the two sites of stimulation were nearly identical.
我们比较了12名拟接受人工耳蜗植入患者术前通过直接圆窗和经鼓岬刺激获得的受试者内电阈值和动态范围。以50%的占空比向每位患者的两个部位发送频率为50、100、200和400Hz的方波。除了50Hz时的阈值(鼓岬阈值低于圆窗阈值)外,两个刺激部位之间的阈值或动态范围均无统计学显著差异。圆窗阈值普遍较低,动态范围较大,尤其是在较高刺激频率时。两个刺激部位的平均阈值斜率几乎相同。