Literature DB >> 26926152

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

Lindsay DeVries1, Rachel Scheperle2, Julie Arenberg Bierer3.   

Abstract

Variability in speech perception scores among cochlear implant listeners may largely reflect the variable efficacy of implant electrodes to convey stimulus information to the auditory nerve. In the present study, three metrics were applied to assess the quality of the electrode-neuron interface of individual cochlear implant channels: the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), the estimation of electrode position using computerized tomography (CT), and behavioral thresholds using focused stimulation. The primary motivation of this approach is to evaluate the ECAP as a site-specific measure of the electrode-neuron interface in the context of two peripheral factors that likely contribute to degraded perception: large electrode-to-modiolus distance and reduced neural density. Ten unilaterally implanted adults with Advanced Bionics HiRes90k devices participated. ECAPs were elicited with monopolar stimulation within a forward-masking paradigm to construct channel interaction functions (CIF), behavioral thresholds were obtained with quadrupolar (sQP) stimulation, and data from imaging provided estimates of electrode-to-modiolus distance and scalar location (scala tympani (ST), intermediate, or scala vestibuli (SV)) for each electrode. The width of the ECAP CIF was positively correlated with electrode-to-modiolus distance; both of these measures were also influenced by scalar position. The ECAP peak amplitude was negatively correlated with behavioral thresholds. Moreover, subjects with low behavioral thresholds and large ECAP amplitudes, averaged across electrodes, tended to have higher speech perception scores. These results suggest a potential clinical role for the ECAP in the objective assessment of individual cochlear implant channels, with the potential to improve speech perception outcomes.

Keywords:  cochlear implants; electrically evoked compound action potential; electrode configuration; imaging; psychophysics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26926152      PMCID: PMC4854826          DOI: 10.1007/s10162-016-0557-9

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


  57 in total

Review 1.  Probing the electrode-neuron interface with focused cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

2.  Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Spread of excitation measurements for the detection of electrode array foldovers: a prospective study comparing 3-dimensional rotational x-ray and intraoperative spread of excitation measurements.

Authors:  Wilko Grolman; Albert Maat; Froukje Verdam; Yvonne Simis; Bart Carelsen; Nicole Freling; Rinze A Tange
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Verification of computed tomographic estimates of cochlear implant array position: a micro-CT and histologic analysis.

Authors:  Jessica Teymouri; Timothy E Hullar; Timothy A Holden; Richard A Chole
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 2.311

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.  Modeling the electrode-neuron interface of cochlear implants: effects of neural survival, electrode placement, and the partial tripolar configuration.

Authors:  Joshua H Goldwyn; Steven M Bierer; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-05-24       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Current focusing sharpens local peaks of excitation in cochlear implant stimulation.

Authors:  Arthi G Srinivasan; David M Landsberger; Robert V Shannon
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  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

9.  Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients.

Authors:  David M Landsberger; Arthi G Srinivasan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2009-04-19       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interface: partial tripolar, single-channel thresholds and psychophysical tuning curves.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  55 in total

Review 1.  The Enigma of Poor Performance by Adults With Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Chelsea Bates; Michael S Harris; David B Pisoni
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

2.  Auditory performance of post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant recipients using electrode deactivation based on postoperative cone beam CT images.

Authors:  Fabiana Danieli; Thomas Dermacy; Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral; Ana Cláudia Mirandola Barbosa Reis; Dan Gnansia; Miguel Angelo Hyppolito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  How electrically evoked compound action potentials in chronically implanted guinea pigs relate to auditory nerve health and electrode impedance.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Deborah J Colesa; Christopher J Buswinka; Andrew M Rabah; Donald L Swiderski; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Psychophysical Tuning Curves as a Correlate of Electrode Position in Cochlear Implant Listeners.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2018-06-04

5.  Accommodation of gender-related phonetic differences by listeners with cochlear implants and in a variety of vocoder simulations.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Perceptual weighting of acoustic cues for accommodating gender-related talker differences heard by listeners with normal hearing and with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Matthew B Winn; Ashley N Moore
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Imaging evaluation of electrode placement and effect on electrode discrimination on different cochlear implant electrode arrays.

Authors:  Ángel Ramos de Miguel; Andrea A Argudo; Silvia A Borkoski Barreiro; Juan Carlos Falcón González; Angel Ramos Macías
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-04-02       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Effects of Electrode Location on Estimates of Neural Health in Humans with Cochlear Implants.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Timothy A Holden; Teresa A Zwolan; H Alexander Arts; Jill B Firszt; Christopher J Buswinka; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-04-27

9.  Auditory Detection Thresholds and Cochlear Resistivity Differ Between Pediatric Cochlear Implant Listeners With Enlarged Vestibular Aqueduct and Those With Connexin-26 Mutations.

Authors:  Kelly N Jahn; Molly D Bergan; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 1.493

10.  Across-site patterns of electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude-growth functions in multichannel cochlear implant recipients and the effects of the interphase gap.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 3.208

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.