Laser stimulation of single auditory nerve fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: One limitation with cochlear implants is the difficulty stimulating spatially discrete spiral ganglion cell groups because of electrode interactions. Multipolar electrodes have improved on this some, but also at the cost of much higher device power consumption. Recently, it has been shown that spatially selective stimulation of the auditory nerve is possible with a mid-infrared laser aimed at the spiral ganglion via the round window. However, these neurons must be driven at adequate rates for optical radiation to be useful in cochlear implants. We herein use single-fiber recordings to characterize the responses of auditory neurons to optical radiation. STUDY DESIGN: In vivo study using normal-hearing adult gerbils. METHODS: Two diode lasers were used for stimulation of the auditory nerve. They operated between 1.844 μm and 1.873 μm, with pulse durations of 35 μs to 1,000 μs, and at repetition rates up to 1,000 pulses per second (pps). The laser outputs were coupled to a 200-μm-diameter optical fiber placed against the round window membrane and oriented toward the spiral ganglion. The auditory nerve was exposed through a craniotomy, and recordings were taken from single fibers during acoustic and laser stimulation. RESULTS: Action potentials occurred 2.5 ms to 4.0 ms after the laser pulse. The latency jitter was up to 3 ms. Maximum rates of discharge averaged 97 ± 52.5 action potentials per second. The neurons did not strictly respond to the laser at stimulation rates over 100 pps. CONCLUSIONS: Auditory neurons can be stimulated by a laser beam passing through the round window membrane and driven at rates sufficient for useful auditory information. Optical stimulation and electrical stimulation have different characteristics; which could be selectively exploited in future cochlear implants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".