Literature DB >> 2013539

Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response: growth of response with current level.

P J Abbas1, C J Brown.   

Abstract

The electrically evoked brainstem response (EABR) was measured in cochlear implant users who had received either the Ineraid multichannel implant or the Nucleus multichannel implant. Although both implants use a multi-electrode array, they are different in a number of ways. In the Ineraid system the electrodes can be accessed directly through a percutaneous plug and stimulation is generally on four different intracochlear electrodes relative to a common ground outside the cochlea. In the Nucleus implant stimulation is accomplished via an internal coil and stimulation is bipolar between pairs along the 22 electrode array. The ABR waveforms were similar for both groups of subjects, consisting of a series of 3 or 4 positive peaks at the highest levels of stimulation. Using the normal stimulation mode (bipolar for Nucleus and monopolar for Ineraid), users of both devices demonstrated an increase in response amplitude and a decrease in response latency with increases in current level. The threshold of response tended to be higher and growth of the response with level tended to be more gradual for Nucleus users than for Ineraid users. However, with bipolar stimulation for both implant types, when the stimulating electrodes were closely spaced the threshold of response was higher and the growth of amplitude with level was more gradual than the case where the electrodes were separated further. When bipolar stimulation and similar electrode spacing was used, the response growth and threshold were similar for both implant types. Results from neither device showed a strong correlation with performance on word recognition tests.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2013539     DOI: 10.1016/0378-5955(91)90011-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  13 in total

1.  Functional modeling of the human auditory brainstem response to broadband stimulation.

Authors:  Sarah Verhulst; Hari M Bharadwaj; Golbarg Mehraei; Christopher A Shera; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Sensitivity to interaural time differences with combined cochlear implant and acoustic stimulation.

Authors:  Tom Francart; Jan Brokx; Jan Wouters
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2008-12-02

3.  Auditory responses to electric and infrared neural stimulation of the rat cochlear nucleus.

Authors:  Rohit U Verma; Amélie A Guex; Kenneth E Hancock; Nedim Durakovic; Colette M McKay; Michaël C C Slama; M Christian Brown; Daniel J Lee
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 3.208

4.  Relationships between electrically evoked potentials and loudness growth in bilateral cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Benjamin Kirby; Carolyn Brown; Paul Abbas; Christine Etler; Sara O'Brien
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner; Kelly L Tremblay
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Tone-burst auditory brainstem response wave V latencies in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired ears.

Authors:  James D Lewis; Judy Kopun; Stephen T Neely; Kendra K Schmid; Michael P Gorga
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  The relationship between electrically evoked compound action potential and speech perception: a study in cochlear implant users with short electrode array.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown; Christine P Etler; Sara O'Brien; Lee-Suk Kim
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.311

8.  Examination and Comparison of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials and Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Results of Children with Cochlear Implantation without Inner Ear Anomaly.

Authors:  Seda Bayrak; Başak Mutlu; Günay Kırkım; Bülent Şerbetçioğlu
Journal:  Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-06-27

9.  Delayed Auditory Brainstem Responses in Prelingually Deaf and Late-Implanted Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Marc J W Lammers; Ruben H M van Eijl; Gijsbert A van Zanten; Huib Versnel; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-11

10.  Peak I of the human auditory brainstem response results from the somatic regions of type I spiral ganglion cells: evidence from computer modeling.

Authors:  Frank Rattay; Simon M Danner
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.