Literature DB >> 12476088

Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.

Jill B Firszt1, Ron D Chambers, Nina Kraus And, Ruth M Reeder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system.
DESIGN: The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures.
RESULTS: For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1.
CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiologic responses of Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, Na-Pa of the EAMLR, and N1-P2 of the ELAR were characterized as functions of current level and electrode site. Data from this study may serve as a normative reference for expected latency, amplitude and threshold values for the recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem and cortical potentials. Responses recorded from cochlear implant users show many similar patterns, yet important distinctions, compared with auditory potentials elicited with acoustic signals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12476088     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200212000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  20 in total

1.  Memory Span for Spoken Digits in Adults With Cochlear Implants or Typical Hearing: Effects of Age and Identification Ability.

Authors:  Miranda Cleary; Tracy Wilkinson; Lauren Wilson; Matthew J Goupell
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Change in Speech Perception and Auditory Evoked Potentials over Time after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults.

Authors:  Suzanne C Purdy; Andrea S Kelly
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2016-02

3.  Methods to eliminate stimulus transduction artifact from insert earphones during electroencephalography.

Authors:  Tom Campbell; Jess R Kerlin; Christopher W Bishop; Lee M Miller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  A potential neurophysiological correlate of electric-acoustic pitch matching in adult cochlear implant users: Pilot data.

Authors:  Chin-Tuan Tan; Brett A Martin; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2018-03-06

Review 5.  Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  A dominantly inherited progressive deafness affecting distal auditory nerve and hair cells.

Authors:  Arnold Starr; Brandon Isaacson; Henry J Michalewski; Fan-Gang Zeng; Ying-Yee Kong; Paula Beale; George W Paulson; Bronya J B Keats; Marci M Lesperance
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2004-12

7.  Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test-Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection.

Authors:  Shuman He; Tyler C McFayden; Holly F B Teagle; Matthew Ewend; Lillian Henderson; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  Evaluation of cochlear implant users' performance using middle and late latency responses.

Authors:  Murat Kurnaz; Bulent Satar; Sertac Yetiser
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.503

9.  The electrically evoked auditory change complex: preliminary results from nucleus cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Carolyn J Brown; Christine Etler; Shuman He; Sara O'Brien; Sheryl Erenberg; Jae-Ryong Kim; Aayesha N Dhuldhoya; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  The effect of changes in stimulus level on electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Christine P Etler; Sara O'Brien
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.