Literature DB >> 30393003

Postoperative Electrocochleography from Hybrid Cochlear Implant users: An Alternative Analysis Procedure.

Jeong-Seo Kim1, Viral D Tejani2, Paul J Abbas2, Carolyn J Brown2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Shorter electrode arrays and soft surgical techniques allow for preservation of acoustic hearing in many cochlear implant (CI) users. Recently, we developed a method of using the Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) system built in Custom Sound EP clinical software to record acoustically evoked electrocochleography (ECoG) responses from an intracochlear electrode in Nucleus Hybrid CI users (Abbas et al., 2017). We recorded responses dominated by the hair cells (cochlear microphonic, CM/DIF) and the auditory nerve (auditory nerve neurophonic, ANN/SUM). Unfortunately, the recording procedure was time consuming, limiting potential clinical applications. This report describes a modified method to record the ECoG response more efficiently. We refer to this modified technique as the "short window" method, while our previous technique (Abbas et al., 2017) is referred as the "long window" method. In this report, our goal was to 1) evaluate the feasibility of the short window method to record the CM/DIF and ANN/SUM responses, 2) characterize the reliability and sensitivity of the measures recorded using the short window method, and 3) evaluate the relationship between the CM/DIF and ANN/SUM measures recorded using the modified method and audiometric thresholds.
METHOD: Thirty-four postlingually deafened adult Hybrid CI users participated in this study. Acoustic tone bursts were presented at four frequencies (250, 500, 750, and 1000 Hz) at various stimulation levels via an insert earphone in both condensation and rarefaction polarities. Acoustically evoked ECoG responses were recorded from the most apical electrode in the intracochlear array. These two responses were subtracted to emphasize the CM/DIF responses and added to emphasize the ANN/SUM responses. Response thresholds were determined based on visual inspection of time waveforms, and trough-to-peak analysis technique was used to quantify response amplitudes. Within-subject comparison of responses measured using both short and long window methods were obtained from seven subjects. We also assessed the reliability and sensitivity of the short window method by comparing repeated measures from 19 subjects at different times. Correlations between CM/DIF and ANN/SUM measures using the short window recording method and audiometric thresholds were also assessed.
RESULTS: Regardless of the recording method, CM/DIF responses were larger than ANN/SUM responses. Responses obtained using the short window method were positively correlated to those obtained using the conventional long window method. Subjects who had stable acoustic hearing at two different time points had similar ECoG responses at those points, confirming high test-retest reliability of the short window method. Subjects who lost hearing between two different time points showed increases in ECoG thresholds, suggesting that physiologic ECoG responses are sensitive to audiometric changes. Correlations between CM/DIF and ANN/SUM thresholds and audiometric thresholds at all tested frequencies were significant.
CONCLUSION: This study compares two different recording methods. Intracochlear ECoG measures recorded using the short window technique were efficient, reliable, and repeatable. We were able to collect more frequency specific data with the short window method, and observed similar results between the long window and short window methods. Correlations between physiological thresholds and audiometric thresholds were similar to those reported previously using the long window method (Abbas et al., 2017). This is an important finding because it demonstrates that clinically-available software can be used to measure frequency-specific ECoG responses with enhanced efficiency, increasing the odds that this technique might move from the laboratory into clinical practice.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory nerve neurophonic; Cochlear implant; Cochlear microphonic; Electrocochleography; Hearing preservation; Hybrid; Neural response telemetry

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30393003      PMCID: PMC6309996          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2018.10.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  54 in total

1.  Contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions--delay of effect?

Authors:  J D Durrant
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 2.  Electrocochleography: methods and clinical applications.

Authors:  R A Ruth; P R Lambert; J A Ferraro
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1988-12

3.  Phase-locked response to low-frequency tones in single auditory nerve fibers of the squirrel monkey.

Authors:  J E Rose; J F Brugge; D J Anderson; J E Hind
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1967-07       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Histopathology of human cochlear implants: correlation of psychophysical and anatomical measures.

Authors:  Aayesha M Khan; Darren M Whiten; Joseph B Nadol; Donald K Eddington
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.208

5.  The relationship between spike rate and synchrony in responses of auditory-nerve fibers to single tones.

Authors:  D H Johnson
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1980-10       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Input/output curves to tone bursts and clicks in extratympanic and transtympanic electrocochleography.

Authors:  R Schoonhoven; M A Fabius; J J Grote
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Evidence that inner hair cells are the major source of cochlear summating potentials.

Authors:  X Y Zheng; D L Ding; S L McFadden; D Henderson
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Hearing preservation among patients undergoing cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Kathryn M Van Abel; Camille C Dunn; Douglas P Sladen; Jacob J Oleson; Charles W Beatty; Brian A Neff; Marlan Hansen; Bruce J Gantz; Colin L W Driscoll
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Cochlear implantation with hearing preservation yields significant benefit for speech recognition in complex listening environments.

Authors:  René H Gifford; Michael F Dorman; Henryk Skarzynski; Artur Lorens; Marek Polak; Colin L W Driscoll; Peter Roland; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Intraoperative round window recordings to acoustic stimuli from cochlear implant patients.

Authors:  Baishakhi Choudhury; Douglas C Fitzpatrick; Craig A Buchman; Benjamin P Wei; Margaret T Dillon; Shuman He; Oliver F Adunka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.311

View more
  6 in total

1.  Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Rachael L Carroll; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Residual Hair Cell Responses in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Complete Loss of Acoustic Hearing After Implantation.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Jeong-Seo Kim; Jacob J Oleson; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-04

Review 3.  Electrocochleography in cochlear implantation: Development, applications, and future directions.

Authors:  Jason H Barnes; Linda X Yin; Aniket A Saoji; Matthew L Carlson
Journal:  World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2020-06-04

4.  Clinical experiences with intraoperative electrocochleography in cochlear implant recipients and its potential to reduce insertion trauma and improve postoperative hearing preservation.

Authors:  Andreas Buechner; Michael Bardt; Sabine Haumann; Gunnar Geissler; Rolf Salcher; Thomas Lenarz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Objectification of intracochlear electrocochleography using machine learning.

Authors:  Klaus Schuerch; Wilhelm Wimmer; Adrian Dalbert; Christian Rummel; Marco Caversaccio; Georgios Mantokoudis; Stefan Weder
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2022-08-29       Impact factor: 4.086

6.  Electrocochleography in Cochlear Implant Users with Residual Acoustic Hearing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jeong-Seo Kim
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-26       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.