Literature DB >> 27900916

Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation.

Paul van de Heyning1, Santiago L Arauz2, Marcus Atlas3,4, Wolf-Dieter Baumgartner5, Marco Caversaccio6, Ronel Chester-Browne3,4, Patricia Estienne2, Javier Gavilan7, Benoit Godey8, Wolfgang Gstöttner5, Demin Han9, Rudolph Hagen10, Martin Kompis6, Vlad Kuzovkov11, Luis Lassaletta7, Franc Lefevre8, Yongxin Li9, Joachim Müller12, Lorne Parnes13, Andrea Kleine Punte1, Christopher Raine14, Gunesh Rajan15, Adriana Rivas16, José Antonio Rivas16, Nicola Royle14, Georg Sprinzl17, Kurt Stephan18, Adam Walkowiak19,20,21, Yuri Yanov11, Kim Zimmermann13, Patrick Zorowka18, Henryk Skarzynski19,20,21.   

Abstract

One of the many parameters that can affect cochlear implant (CI) users' performance is the site of presentation of electrical stimulation, from the CI, to the auditory nerve. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements are commonly used to verify nerve function by stimulating one electrode contact in the cochlea and recording the resulting action potentials on the other contacts of the electrode array. The present study aimed to determine if the ECAP amplitude differs between the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea, if double peak potentials were more likely in the apex than the basal region of the cochlea, and if there were differences in the ECAP threshold and recovery function across the cochlea. ECAP measurements were performed in the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea at fixed sites of stimulation with varying recording electrodes. One hundred and forty one adult subjects with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss fitted with a Standard or FLEXSOFT electrode were included in this study. ECAP responses were captured using MAESTRO System Software (MED-EL). The ECAP amplitude, threshold, and slope were determined using amplitude growth sequences. The 50% recovery rate was assessed using independent single sequences that have two stimulation pulses (a masker and a probe pulse) separated by a variable inter-pulse interval. For all recordings, ECAP peaks were annotated semi-automatically. ECAP amplitudes were greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. ECAP slopes were steeper in the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea and ECAP thresholds were lower in the middle region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. The incidence of double peaks was greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. This data indicates that the site and intensity of cochlear stimulation affect ECAP properties.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ART; Amplitude; Apical; Basal; Cochlea; Cochlear implant; Double peak; ECAP; Electrode; Middle; Recovery sequence; Threshold

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27900916     DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2016.1240427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int        ISSN: 1467-0100


  8 in total

1.  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

2.  A Fast Approximate Method for Predicting the Behavior of Auditory Nerve Fibers and the Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Signal.

Authors:  Azam Ghanaei; S Mohammad P Firoozabadi; Hamed Sadjedi
Journal:  J Med Signals Sens       Date:  2021-07-21

Review 3.  Literature Review on the Distribution of Spiral Ganglion Cell Bodies inside the Human Cochlear Central Modiolar Trunk.

Authors:  Anandhan Dhanasingh; Claude N Jolly; Gunesh Rajan; Paul van de Heyning
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.017

4.  Prediction of the Functional Status of the Cochlear Nerve in Individual Cochlear Implant Users Using Machine Learning and Electrophysiological Measures.

Authors:  Jeffrey Skidmore; Lei Xu; Xiuhua Chao; William J Riggs; Angela Pellittieri; Chloe Vaughan; Xia Ning; Ruijie Wang; Jianfen Luo; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 5.  The Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential: From Laboratory to Clinic.

Authors:  Shuman He; Holly F B Teagle; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Dendritic Degeneration of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers and Its Impact on the Spiking Pattern Under Regular Conditions and During Cochlear Implant Stimulation.

Authors:  Amirreza Heshmat; Sogand Sajedi; Lejo Johnson Chacko; Natalie Fischer; Anneliese Schrott-Fischer; Frank Rattay
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  A Broadly Applicable Method for Characterizing the Slope of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Amplitude Growth Function.

Authors:  Jeffrey Skidmore; Dyan Ramekers; Deborah J Colesa; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst; Shuman He
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

8.  Optimized SNR-based ECAP threshold determination is comparable to the judgement of human evaluators.

Authors:  Lutz Gärtner; Philipp Spitzer; Kathrin Lauss; Marko Takanen; Thomas Lenarz; Sebastian Hoth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.