Mattingly Jameson K, Banakis Hartl Renee M, Jenkins Herman A, Tollin Daniel J, Cass Stephen P, Greene Nathaniel T
Department of Otolaryngology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Ear Hear. 2020 Mar/Apr;41(2):312-322. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000758.
To compare contralateral to ipsilateral stimulation with percutaneous and transcutaneous bone conduction implants.
Bone conduction implants (BCIs) effectively treat conductive and mixed hearing losses. In some cases, such as in single-sided deafness, the BCI is implanted contralateral to the remaining healthy ear in an attempt to restore some of the benefits provided by binaural hearing. While the benefit of contralateral stimulation has been shown in at least some patients, it is not clear what cues or mechanisms contribute to this function. Previous studies have investigated the motion of the ossicular chain, skull, and round window in response to bone vibration. Here, we extend those reports by reporting simultaneous measurements of cochlear promontory velocity and intracochlear pressures during bone conduction stimulation with two common BCI attachments, and directly compare ipsilateral to contralateral stimulation.
Fresh-frozen whole human heads were prepared bilaterally with mastoidectomies. Intracochlear pressure (PIC) in the scala vestibuli (PSV) and tympani (PST) was measured with fiber optic pressure probes concurrently with cochlear promontory velocity (VProm) via laser Doppler vibrometry during stimulation provided with a closed-field loudspeaker or a BCI. Stimuli were pure tones between 120 and 10,240 Hz, and response magnitudes and phases for PIC and VProm were measured for air and bone conducted sound presentation.
Contralateral stimulation produced lower response magnitudes and longer delays than ipsilateral in all measures, particularly for high-frequency stimulation. Contralateral response magnitudes were lower than ipsilateral response magnitudes by up to 10 to 15 dB above ~2 kHz for a skin-penetrating abutment, which increased to 25 to 30 dB and extended to lower frequencies when applied with a transcutaneous (skin drive) attachment.
Transcranial attenuation and delay suggest that ipsilateral stimulation will be dominant for frequencies over ~1 kHz, and that complex phase interactions will occur during bilateral or bimodal stimulation. These effects indicate a mechanism by which bilateral users could gain some bilateral advantage.
比较经皮和经皮骨传导植入物的对侧与同侧刺激。
骨传导植入物(BCI)可有效治疗传导性和混合性听力损失。在某些情况下,如单侧耳聋,BCI植入在剩余健康耳朵的对侧,试图恢复双耳听力带来的一些益处。虽然至少在一些患者中已显示出对侧刺激的益处,但尚不清楚哪些线索或机制促成了这种功能。先前的研究已经调查了听骨链、颅骨和圆窗对骨振动的反应。在此,我们通过报告在使用两种常见BCI附件进行骨传导刺激期间同时测量蜗窗岬速度和蜗内压力,扩展了这些报告,并直接比较同侧与对侧刺激。
对新鲜冷冻的完整人头双侧进行乳突切除术。在使用封闭场扬声器或BCI进行刺激期间,通过激光多普勒振动测量法,使用光纤压力探头测量前庭阶(PSV)和鼓阶(PST)中的蜗内压力(PIC),同时测量蜗窗岬速度(VProm)。刺激为120至10240 Hz之间的纯音,测量气导和骨导声音呈现时PIC和VProm的反应幅度和相位。
在所有测量中,对侧刺激产生的反应幅度低于同侧,延迟更长,尤其是在高频刺激时。对于穿透皮肤的基台,在约2 kHz以上,对侧反应幅度比同侧反应幅度低多达10至15 dB,当使用经皮(皮肤驱动)附件时,该差值增加到25至30 dB并扩展到更低频率。
经颅衰减和延迟表明,对于频率超过约1 kHz的情况,同侧刺激将占主导,并且在双侧或双峰刺激期间会发生复杂的相位相互作用。这些效应表明了一种机制,通过该机制双侧使用者可以获得一些双侧优势。