HYPOTHESIS: The compound action potential (CAP) is a purely neural component of the cochlea's response to sound, and may provide information regarding the existing neural substrate in cochlear implant (CI) subjects that can help account for variance in speech perception outcomes. BACKGROUND: Measurement of the "total response" (TR), or sum of the magnitudes of spectral components in the ongoing responses to tone bursts across frequencies, has been shown to account for 40 to 50% of variance in speech perception outcomes. The ongoing response is composed of both hair cell and neural components. This correlation may be improved with the addition of the CAP. METHODS: Intraoperative round window electrocochleography (ECochG) was performed in adult and pediatric CI subjects (n = 238). Stimuli were tones of different frequencies (250 Hz-4 kHz) at 90 dB nHL. The CAP was assessed in two ways, as an amplitude and with a scaling factor derived from a function fitted to the response. The results were correlated with consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores at 6 months post-implantation (n = 51). RESULTS: Only about half of the subjects had a measurable CAP at any frequency. The CNC word scores correlated weakly with both amplitude (r = 0.20, p < 0.001) and scaling factor (r = 0.25, p < 0.01). In contrast, the TR alone accounted for 43% of the variance, and addition of either CAP measurement in multiple regression did not account for additional variance. CONCLUSIONS: The underlying pathology in CI patients causes the CAP to be often absent and highly variable when present. The TR is a better predictor of speech perception outcomes than the CAP.
HYPOTHESIS: The compound action potential (CAP) is a purely neural component of the cochlea's response to sound, and may provide information regarding the existing neural substrate in cochlear implant (CI) subjects that can help account for variance in speech perception outcomes. BACKGROUND: Measurement of the "total response" (TR), or sum of the magnitudes of spectral components in the ongoing responses to tone bursts across frequencies, has been shown to account for 40 to 50% of variance in speech perception outcomes. The ongoing response is composed of both hair cell and neural components. This correlation may be improved with the addition of the CAP. METHODS: Intraoperative round window electrocochleography (ECochG) was performed in adult and pediatric CI subjects (n = 238). Stimuli were tones of different frequencies (250 Hz-4 kHz) at 90 dB nHL. The CAP was assessed in two ways, as an amplitude and with a scaling factor derived from a function fitted to the response. The results were correlated with consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) word scores at 6 months post-implantation (n = 51). RESULTS: Only about half of the subjects had a measurable CAP at any frequency. The CNC word scores correlated weakly with both amplitude (r = 0.20, p < 0.001) and scaling factor (r = 0.25, p < 0.01). In contrast, the TR alone accounted for 43% of the variance, and addition of either CAP measurement in multiple regression did not account for additional variance. CONCLUSIONS: The underlying pathology in CI patients causes the CAP to be often absent and highly variable when present. The TR is a better predictor of speech perception outcomes than the CAP.
Authors: J Bruce Tomblin; Brittan A Barker; Linda J Spencer; Xuyang Zhang; Bruce J Gantz Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Helen X Xu; Grace H Kim; Eugene P Snissarenko; Sebahattin Cureoglu; Michael M Paparella Journal: Acta Otolaryngol Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 1.494
Authors: Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Adam P Campbell; Adam T Campbell; Baishakhi Choudhury; Margaret T Dillon; Margaret P Dillon; Mathieu Forgues; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Diane S Lazard; Christophe Vincent; Frédéric Venail; Paul Van de Heyning; Eric Truy; Olivier Sterkers; Piotr H Skarzynski; Henryk Skarzynski; Karen Schauwers; Stephen O'Leary; Deborah Mawman; Bert Maat; Andrea Kleine-Punte; Alexander M Huber; Kevin Green; Paul J Govaerts; Bernard Fraysse; Richard Dowell; Norbert Dillier; Elaine Burke; Andy Beynon; François Bergeron; Deniz Başkent; Françoise Artières; Peter J Blamey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew K Pappa; Kendall A Hutson; William C Scott; J David Wilson; Kevin E Fox; Maheer M Masood; Christopher K Giardina; Stephen H Pulver; Gilberto D Grana; Charles Askew; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2019-04-03 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Artur Lorens; Adam Walkowiak; Marek Polak; Aleksandra Kowalczuk; Mariusz Furmanek; Henryk Skarzynski; Anita Obrycka Journal: J Int Adv Otol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 1.017
Authors: Tatyana E Fontenot; Christopher K Giardina; Holly F Teagle; Lisa R Park; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kevin D Brown; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Christopher K Giardina; Kevin D Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Kendall A Hutson; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Tatyana Elizabeth Fontenot; Christopher Kenneth Giardina; Margaret Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Holly F Teagle; Lisa R Park; Kevin David Brown; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Harold C Pillsbury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2019 May/Jun Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Kendall A Hutson; Stephen H Pulver; Pablo Ariel; Caroline Naso; Douglas C Fitzpatrick Journal: J Comp Neurol Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 3.215