Tatyana E Fontenot1, Christopher K Giardina2, Holly F Teagle3, Lisa R Park3, Oliver F Adunka4, Craig A Buchman5, Kevin D Brown3, Douglas C Fitzpatrick2. 1. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Otolaryngology, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. Electronic address: tatyana_fontenot@med.unc.edu. 2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Otolaryngology, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 3. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Otolaryngology, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 4. The Ohio State University, Department of Otolaryngology, Columbus, OH, United States. 5. Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Otolaryngology, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess electrocochleography (ECochG) to tones as an instrument to account for CI speech perception outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). MATERIALS & METHODS: Children (<18 years) receiving CIs for ANSD (n = 30) and non-ANSD (n = 74) etiologies of hearing loss were evaluated with ECochG using tone bursts (0.25-4 kHz). The total response (TR) is the sum of spectral peaks of responses across frequencies. The compound action potential (CAP) and the auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN) in ECochG waveforms were used to estimate nerve activity and calculate nerve score. Performance on open-set monosyllabic word tests was the outcome measure. Standard statistical methods were applied. RESULTS: On average, TR was larger in ANSD than in non-ANSD subjects. Most ANSD (73.3%) and non-ANSD (87.8%) subjects achieved open-set speech perception; TR accounted for 33% and 20% of variability in the outcomes, respectively. In the ANSD group, the PTA accounted for 69.3% of the variability, but there was no relationship with outcomes in the non-ANSD group. In both populations, nerve score was sensitive in identifying subjects at risk for not acquiring open-set speech perception, while the CAP and the ANN were more specific. CONCLUSION: In both subject groups, the TRs correlated with outcomes but these measures were notably larger in the ANSD group. There was also strong correlation between PTA and speech perception outcome in ANSD group. In both subject populations, weaker evidence of neural activity was related to failure to achieve open-set speech perception.
OBJECTIVES: To assess electrocochleography (ECochG) to tones as an instrument to account for CI speech perception outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). MATERIALS & METHODS:Children (<18 years) receiving CIs for ANSD (n = 30) and non-ANSD (n = 74) etiologies of hearing loss were evaluated with ECochG using tone bursts (0.25-4 kHz). The total response (TR) is the sum of spectral peaks of responses across frequencies. The compound action potential (CAP) and the auditory nerve neurophonic (ANN) in ECochG waveforms were used to estimate nerve activity and calculate nerve score. Performance on open-set monosyllabic word tests was the outcome measure. Standard statistical methods were applied. RESULTS: On average, TR was larger in ANSD than in non-ANSD subjects. Most ANSD (73.3%) and non-ANSD (87.8%) subjects achieved open-set speech perception; TR accounted for 33% and 20% of variability in the outcomes, respectively. In the ANSD group, the PTA accounted for 69.3% of the variability, but there was no relationship with outcomes in the non-ANSD group. In both populations, nerve score was sensitive in identifying subjects at risk for not acquiring open-set speech perception, while the CAP and the ANN were more specific. CONCLUSION: In both subject groups, the TRs correlated with outcomes but these measures were notably larger in the ANSD group. There was also strong correlation between PTA and speech perception outcome in ANSD group. In both subject populations, weaker evidence of neural activity was related to failure to achieve open-set speech perception.
Authors: Laurie S Eisenberg; Karen C Johnson; Amy S Martinez; Carol G Cokely; Emily A Tobey; Alexandra L Quittner; Nancy E Fink; Nae-Yuh Wang; John K Niparko Journal: Audiol Neurootol Date: 2006-05-12 Impact factor: 1.854
Authors: Craig A Buchman; Patricia A Roush; Holly F B Teagle; Carolyn J Brown; Carlton J Zdanski; John H Grose Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: G Rance; D E Beer; B Cone-Wesson; R K Shepherd; R C Dowell; A M King; F W Rickards; G M Clark Journal: Ear Hear Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Nae-Yuh Wang; Laurie S Eisenberg; Karen C Johnson; Nancy E Fink; Emily A Tobey; Alexandra L Quittner; John K Niparko Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: James T Brookes; Adam B Kanis; Lih Yeen Tan; Lisbeth Tranebjaerg; Abram Vore; Richard J H Smith Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 1.675
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: Kevin Y Zhan; Oliver F Adunka; Adrien Eshraghi; William J Riggs; Sandra M Prentiss; Denise Yan; Fred F Telischi; Xuezhong Liu; Shuman He Journal: J Otol Date: 2020-08-01