Literature DB >> 20085196

Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant.

Eun Kyung Jeon1, Carolyn J Brown, Christine P Etler, Sara O'Brien, Li-Kuei Chiou, Paul J Abbas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the mid-1990s, Cochlear Corporation introduced a cochlear implant (CI) to the market that was equipped with hardware that made it possible to record electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from CI users of all ages. Over the course of the next decade, many studies were published that compared ECAP thresholds with levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI. In 2001 Advanced Bionics Corporation introduced the Clarion CII cochlear implant (the Clarion CII internal device is also known as the CII Bionic Ear). This cochlear implant was also equipped with a system that allowed measurement of the ECAP. While a great deal is known about how ECAP thresholds compare with the levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI, relatively few studies have reported comparisons between ECAP thresholds and the levels used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI.
PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between ECAP thresholds and behavioral measures of perceptual dynamic range for the range of stimuli commonly used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. RESEARCH
DESIGN: This prospective and experimental study uses correlational and descriptive statistics to define the relationship between ECAP thresholds and perceptual dynamic range measures. STUDY SAMPLE: Twelve postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. All were experienced users of the Advanced Bionics CI system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: ECAP thresholds were recorded using the commercially available SoundWave software. Perceptual measures of threshold (T-level), most comfortable level (M-level), and maximum comfortable level (C-level) were obtained using both "tone bursts" and "speech bursts." The relationship between these perceptual and electrophysiological variables was defined using paired t-tests as well as correlation and linear regression.
RESULTS: ECAP thresholds were significantly correlated with the perceptual dynamic range measures studied; however, correlations were not strong. Analysis of the individual data revealed considerable discrepancy between the contour of ECAP threshold versus electrode function and the behavioral loudness estimates used for programming.
CONCLUSION: ECAP thresholds recorded from Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users always indicated levels where the programming stimulus was audible for the listener. However, the correlation between ECAP thresholds and M-levels (the primary metric used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI), while statistically significant, was quite modest. If programming levels are to be determined on the basis of ECAP thresholds, care should be taken to ensure that stimulation is not uncomfortably loud, particularly on the basal electrodes in the array.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20085196      PMCID: PMC2875933          DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol        ISSN: 1050-0545            Impact factor:   1.664


  17 in total

1.  Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures.

Authors:  Keely Seyle; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; B Gantz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential.

Authors:  P J Abbas; C J Brown; J K Shallop; J B Firszt; M L Hughes; S H Hong; S J Staller
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.570

4.  ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays.

Authors:  M Polak; A Hodges; T Balkany
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Preliminary results on correlation between neural response imaging and 'most comfortable levels' in cochlear implantation.

Authors:  I Akin; G Kuran; C Saka; M Vural
Journal:  J Laryngol Otol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.469

6.  Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1998-05

7.  Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies.

Authors:  De-Min Han; Xue-Qing Chen; Xiao-Tian Zhao; Ying Kong; Yong-Xin Li; Sha Liu; Bo Liu; Ling-Yan Mo
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 1.494

8.  The use of long-duration current pulses to assess nerve survival.

Authors:  C A Miller; P J Abbas; B K Robinson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 3.208

9.  Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects.

Authors:  Marc D Eisen; Kevin H Franck
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging.

Authors:  Johan H M Frijns; Jeroen J Briaire; Jan A P M de Laat; Jan J Grote
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  [Intra- and postoperative electrophysiological diagnostics].

Authors:  T Wesarg; S Arndt; A Aschendorff; R Laszig; R Beck; L Jung; S Zirn
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Neural origin of evoked potentials during thalamic deep brain stimulation.

Authors:  Alexander R Kent; Warren M Grill
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Measurement of evoked potentials during thalamic deep brain stimulation.

Authors:  Alexander R Kent; Brandon D Swan; David T Brocker; Dennis A Turner; Robert E Gross; Warren M Grill
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Recommendations for Measuring the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in Children With Cochlear Nerve Deficiency.

Authors:  Shuman He; Xiuhua Chao; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Lei Xu; Holly F B Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin D Brown; Michelle Shannon; Cynthia Warner; Angela Pellittieri; William J Riggs
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 May/Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

Review 6.  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

7.  Recording evoked potentials during deep brain stimulation: development and validation of instrumentation to suppress the stimulus artefact.

Authors:  A R Kent; W M Grill
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 5.379

8.  Determining electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds: a comparison of computer versus human analysis methods.

Authors:  E Katelyn Glassman; Michelle L Hughes
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  A physiological and behavioral system for hearing restoration with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Julia King; Ina Shehu; J Thomas Roland; Mario A Svirsky; Robert C Froemke
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  In-vitro characterization of a cochlear implant system for recording of evoked compound action potentials.

Authors:  Christian Neustetter; Matthias Zangerl; Philipp Spitzer; Clemens Zierhofer
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 2.819

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.