Cargando…

Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers

Background: Multi-compartment cable models of auditory nerve fibers have been developed to assist in the improvement of cochlear implants. With the advancement of computational technology and the results obtained from in vivo and in vitro experiments, these models have evolved to incorporate a consi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bachmaier, Richard, Encke, Jörg, Obando-Leitón, Miguel, Hemmert, Werner, Bai, Siwei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6848226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31749676
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01173
_version_ 1783469051331215360
author Bachmaier, Richard
Encke, Jörg
Obando-Leitón, Miguel
Hemmert, Werner
Bai, Siwei
author_facet Bachmaier, Richard
Encke, Jörg
Obando-Leitón, Miguel
Hemmert, Werner
Bai, Siwei
author_sort Bachmaier, Richard
collection PubMed
description Background: Multi-compartment cable models of auditory nerve fibers have been developed to assist in the improvement of cochlear implants. With the advancement of computational technology and the results obtained from in vivo and in vitro experiments, these models have evolved to incorporate a considerable degree of morphological and physiological details. They have also been combined with three-dimensional volume conduction models of the cochlea to simulate neural responses to electrical stimulation. However, no specific rules have been provided on choosing the appropriate cable model, and most models adopted in recent studies were chosen without a specific reason or by inheritance. Methods: Three of the most cited biophysical multi-compartment cable models of the human auditory nerve, i.e., Rattay et al. (2001b), Briaire and Frijns (2005), and Smit et al. (2010), were implemented in this study. Several properties of single fibers were compared among the three models, including threshold, conduction velocity, action potential shape, latency, refractory properties, as well as stochastic and temporal behaviors. Experimental results regarding these properties were also included as a reference for comparison. Results: For monophasic single-pulse stimulation, the ratio of anodic vs. cathodic thresholds in all models was within the experimental range despite a much larger ratio in the model by Briaire and Frijns. For biphasic pulse-train stimulation, thresholds as a function of both pulse rate and pulse duration differed between the models, but none matched the experimental observations even coarsely. Similarly, for all other properties including the conduction velocity, action potential shape, and latency, the models presented different outcomes and not all of them fell within the range observed in experiments. Conclusions: While all three models presented similar values in certain single fiber properties to those obtained in experiments, none matched all experimental observations satisfactorily. In particular, the adaptation and temporal integration behaviors were completely missing in all models. Further extensions and analyses are required to explain and simulate realistic auditory nerve fiber responses to electrical stimulation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6848226
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68482262019-11-20 Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers Bachmaier, Richard Encke, Jörg Obando-Leitón, Miguel Hemmert, Werner Bai, Siwei Front Neurosci Neuroscience Background: Multi-compartment cable models of auditory nerve fibers have been developed to assist in the improvement of cochlear implants. With the advancement of computational technology and the results obtained from in vivo and in vitro experiments, these models have evolved to incorporate a considerable degree of morphological and physiological details. They have also been combined with three-dimensional volume conduction models of the cochlea to simulate neural responses to electrical stimulation. However, no specific rules have been provided on choosing the appropriate cable model, and most models adopted in recent studies were chosen without a specific reason or by inheritance. Methods: Three of the most cited biophysical multi-compartment cable models of the human auditory nerve, i.e., Rattay et al. (2001b), Briaire and Frijns (2005), and Smit et al. (2010), were implemented in this study. Several properties of single fibers were compared among the three models, including threshold, conduction velocity, action potential shape, latency, refractory properties, as well as stochastic and temporal behaviors. Experimental results regarding these properties were also included as a reference for comparison. Results: For monophasic single-pulse stimulation, the ratio of anodic vs. cathodic thresholds in all models was within the experimental range despite a much larger ratio in the model by Briaire and Frijns. For biphasic pulse-train stimulation, thresholds as a function of both pulse rate and pulse duration differed between the models, but none matched the experimental observations even coarsely. Similarly, for all other properties including the conduction velocity, action potential shape, and latency, the models presented different outcomes and not all of them fell within the range observed in experiments. Conclusions: While all three models presented similar values in certain single fiber properties to those obtained in experiments, none matched all experimental observations satisfactorily. In particular, the adaptation and temporal integration behaviors were completely missing in all models. Further extensions and analyses are required to explain and simulate realistic auditory nerve fiber responses to electrical stimulation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6848226/ /pubmed/31749676 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01173 Text en Copyright © 2019 Bachmaier, Encke, Obando-Leitón, Hemmert and Bai. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Bachmaier, Richard
Encke, Jörg
Obando-Leitón, Miguel
Hemmert, Werner
Bai, Siwei
Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title_full Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title_fullStr Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title_short Comparison of Multi-Compartment Cable Models of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers
title_sort comparison of multi-compartment cable models of human auditory nerve fibers
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6848226/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31749676
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01173
work_keys_str_mv AT bachmaierrichard comparisonofmulticompartmentcablemodelsofhumanauditorynervefibers
AT enckejorg comparisonofmulticompartmentcablemodelsofhumanauditorynervefibers
AT obandoleitonmiguel comparisonofmulticompartmentcablemodelsofhumanauditorynervefibers
AT hemmertwerner comparisonofmulticompartmentcablemodelsofhumanauditorynervefibers
AT baisiwei comparisonofmulticompartmentcablemodelsofhumanauditorynervefibers