1. The relationship between round window and ear canal Cochlear microphonic
- Author
-
Yongqiang Yu, Junping Liu, Jastin Antisdel, Changming Liu, Joshua Sappington, Xiaobin Wang, Yunge Gao, Yanguo Peng, Hui Wang, Zhonghao Lin, Hongguang Ruan, Ruiying Wang, Shuwu Lin, and Ming Zhang
- Subjects
ear canal cochlear microphonic ,noise induced hearing loss ,round window cochlear microphonic ,Otorhinolaryngology ,RF1-547 ,Surgery ,RD1-811 - Abstract
Abstract Hypothesis Cochlear microphonic recorded at ear canal (CM‐EC) can be a substitute for the one recorded at round window (CM‐RW). Background Almost all clinics do not measure tone‐burst evoked CM due to technical difficulty although it can provide more information than click evoked CM. Moreover, clinicians like the CM‐EC more than that measured at CM‐RW because CM‐EC is non‐invasive. There is difference between CM‐RW and CM‐EC, for example, CM‐EC is less prominent than CM‐RW, therefore, studying tone‐burst evoked CM‐EC and its relationship with CM‐RW are highly significant and can promote the clinical application of CM‐EC. Method Nine guinea pigs were randomly allocated into three groups, group 1 was not exposed to noise, called normal control. group 2 and group 3 were exposed to the low‐ (0.5–2 kHz) and high‐frequency band‐noise (6–8 kHz) at 120 dB SPL for 1 h, respectively. It was difficulty to record low‐frequency CM due to severe environmental interruption, in current study the recording technology of tone‐burst evoked CM was optimized so that tone‐burst evoked CM was measured across full speech frequency (0.5–8 kHz) in the presence of normal hearing and noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Results CM‐RW and CM‐EC were successfully recorded across speech frequency. Significant reduction in CM amplitude was observed at 0.5 and 2 kHz in group 2, at 6 and 8 kHz in group 3 as compared to group 1, p
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF