Literature DB >> 24048907

Can ECAP measures be used for totally objective programming of cochlear implants?

Colette M McKay1, Kirpa Chandan, Idrick Akhoun, Catherine Siciliano, Karolina Kluk.   

Abstract

An experiment was conducted with eight cochlear implant subjects to investigate the feasibility of using electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measures other than ECAP thresholds to predict the way that behavioral thresholds change with rate of stimulation, and hence, whether they can be used without combination with behavioral measures to determine program stimulus levels for cochlear implants. Loudness models indicate that two peripheral neural response characteristics contribute to the slope of the threshold versus rate function: the way that neural activity to each stimulus pulse decreases as rate increases and the slope of the neural response versus stimulus current function. ECAP measures related to these two characteristics were measured: the way that ECAP amplitude decreases with stimulus rate and the ECAP amplitude growth function, respectively. A loudness model (incorporating temporal integration and the two neural response characteristics) and regression analyses were used to evaluate whether the ECAP measures could predict the average slope of the behavioral threshold versus current function and whether individual variation in the measures could predict individual variation in the slope of the threshold function. The average change of behavioral threshold with increasing rate was well predicted by the model when using the average ECAP data. However, the individual variations in the slope of the thresholds versus rate functions were not well predicted by individual variations in ECAP data. It was concluded that these ECAP measures are not useful for fully objective programming, possibly because they do not accurately reflect the neural response characteristics assumed by the model, or are measured at current levels much higher than threshold currents.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24048907      PMCID: PMC3825020          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-013-0417-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol        ISSN: 1438-7573


  27 in total

1.  Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children.

Authors:  M L Hughes; C J Brown; P J Abbas; A A Wolaver; J P Gervais
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Katherine R Henshall; Rebecca J Farrell; Hugh J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds.

Authors:  Guido F Smoorenburg; Christina Willeboer; Johannes E van Dijk
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.854

4.  Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system.

Authors:  D Cafarelli Dees; N Dillier; W K Lai; E von Wallenberg; B van Dijk; F Akdas; M Aksit; C Batman; A Beynon; S Burdo; J-M Chanal; L Collet; M Conway; C Coudert; L Craddock; H Cullington; N Deggouj; B Fraysse; S Grabel; J Kiefer; J G Kiss; T Lenarz; A Mair; S Maune; J Müller-Deile; J-P Piron; S Razza; C Tasche; H Thai-Van; F Toth; E Truy; A Uziel; G F Smoorenburg
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 1.854

5.  Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  Lisa G Potts; Margaret W Skinner; Brenda D Gotter; Michael J Strube; Chris A Brenner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: the effect of interpulse intervals.

Authors:  C M McKay; H J McDermott
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in Ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses.

Authors:  C J Brown; P J Abbas; J Borland; M R Bertschy
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1996-06

8.  Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children.

Authors:  Karen A Gordon; Blake C Papsin; Robert V Harrison
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival.

Authors:  Pavel Prado-Guitierrez; Leonie M Fewster; John M Heasman; Colette M McKay; Robert K Shepherd
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Temporal processing in the auditory system: insights from cochlear and auditory midbrain implantees.

Authors:  Colette M McKay; Hubert H Lim; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-10-17
View more
  16 in total

1.  Electrically evoked electroretinograms and pupil responses in Argus II retinal implant wearers.

Authors:  H Christiaan Stronks; Michael P Barry; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Effect of stimulus level on the temporal response properties of the auditory nerve in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Sarah A Laurello
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2017-06-13       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear-Implant Users: Relationship to Psychometric Functions for Detection

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.293

4.  Temporal Response Properties of the Auditory Nerve in Implanted Children with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder and Implanted Children with Sensorineural Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Shuman He; Paul J Abbas; Danielle V Doyle; Tyler C McFayden; Stephen Mulherin
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Evaluating multipulse integration as a neural-health correlate in human cochlear-implant users: Relationship to spatial selectivity.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Forward Masking in Cochlear Implant Users: Electrophysiological and Psychophysical Data Using Pulse Train Maskers.

Authors:  Youssef Adel; Gaston Hilkhuysen; Arnaud Noreña; Yves Cazals; Stéphane Roman; Olivier Macherey
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-21

8.  Evaluating Multipulse Integration as a Neural-Health Correlate in Human Cochlear Implant Users: Effects of Stimulation Mode.

Authors:  Ning Zhou; Lixue Dong; Mingqi Hang
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-10-30

9.  The relation between auditory-nerve temporal responses and perceptual rate integration in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Jacquelyn L Baudhuin; Jenny L Goehring
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-08-02       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Assessing temporal responsiveness of primary stimulated neurons in auditory brainstem and cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Mahan Azadpour; William H Shapiro; J Thomas Roland; Mario A Svirsky
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.