Display options
Cite
Chang JE, Zeng FG. Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Front Syst Neurosci. 2012;6:19doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019.
Chang, J. E., & Zeng, F. G. (2012). Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 619. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019
Chang, Janice E, and Zeng, Fan-Gang. "Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve." Frontiers in systems neuroscience vol. 6 (2012): 19. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019
Chang JE, Zeng FG. Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve. Front Syst Neurosci. 2012 Mar 29;6:19. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019. eCollection 2012. PMID: 22479238; PMCID: PMC3315113.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Syst Neurosci. 2012 Mar 29;6:19. doi: 10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019. eCollection 2012.

Tinnitus suppression by electric stimulation of the auditory nerve.

Frontiers in systems neuroscience

Janice E Chang, Fan-Gang Zeng

Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of California Irvine, Irvine CA, USA.

PMID: 22479238 PMCID: PMC3315113 DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2012.00019

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.

Keywords: cochlear implant; electric stimulation; loudness adaptation; tinnitus

References

  1. Otol Neurotol. 2011 Jan;32(1):39-47 - PubMed
  2. Otol Neurotol. 2012 Jan;33(1):6-12 - PubMed
  3. Otol Neurotol. 2003 May;24(3):478-85 - PubMed
  4. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 May;136(5):757-62 - PubMed
  5. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Apr;35(5):1089-109 - PubMed
  6. Ciba Found Symp. 1981;85:204-16 - PubMed
  7. Int Tinnitus J. 2009;15(1):5-50 - PubMed
  8. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995 Sep;166:418-20 - PubMed
  9. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng. 2008;1:115-42 - PubMed
  10. Acta Otolaryngol. 1993 May;113(3):291-5 - PubMed
  11. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Aug 18;95(17):10340-3 - PubMed
  12. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000 Jun;11(6):293-4 - PubMed
  13. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:347-55 - PubMed
  14. Hear Res. 1999 Jan;127(1-2):108-18 - PubMed
  15. Am J Audiol. 2009 Dec;18(2):144-51 - PubMed
  16. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2006 Mar;7(1):59-70 - PubMed
  17. Laryngoscope. 1994 Jun;104(6 Pt 1):752-4 - PubMed
  18. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63 - PubMed
  19. Hear Res. 2011 Jul;277(1-2):61-6 - PubMed
  20. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002 Jun;13(6):323-31 - PubMed
  21. Hear Res. 2011 Jun;276(1-2):52-60 - PubMed
  22. Ear Hear. 2004 Aug;25(4):310-35 - PubMed
  23. Ear Hear. 1985 Mar-Apr;6(2):71-5 - PubMed
  24. J Neurosci. 2010 Nov 10;30(45):14972-9 - PubMed
  25. Nature. 1991 Jul 18;352(6332):236-8 - PubMed
  26. Br J Audiol. 2000 Aug;34(4):205-24 - PubMed
  27. Science. 1994 Apr 22;264(5158):564-6 - PubMed
  28. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2011 Feb;38(1):14-20 - PubMed
  29. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992 Dec;118(12):1291-7 - PubMed
  30. Trends Neurosci. 2004 Nov;27(11):676-82 - PubMed
  31. Int J Audiol. 2004 May;43(5):245-51 - PubMed
  32. Int Tinnitus J. 1997;3(1):35-38 - PubMed
  33. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Feb;95(2):1085-99 - PubMed
  34. Brain. 2000 Oct;123 ( Pt 10):2065-76 - PubMed
  35. Am J Otol. 1990 Jul;11(4):282-9 - PubMed
  36. Br J Audiol. 1989 Feb;23(1):53-62 - PubMed
  37. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Sep;117(9):645-52 - PubMed
  38. Trends Amplif. 2004;8(1):1-34 - PubMed
  39. Hear Res. 2000 Sep;147(1-2):261-74 - PubMed
  40. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009 Spring;21(2):230-1 - PubMed
  41. Prog Brain Res. 2007;166:237-46 - PubMed
  42. Otol Neurotol. 2001 Mar;22(2):200-4 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support