Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves Martins1, Maria Valéria Schmidt Goffi-Gomez2, Robinson Koji Tsuji2, Ricardo Ferreira Bento2. 1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar, 255, São Paulo, SP 05403-000, Brazil. Electronic address: kellyvcm@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of São Paulo, Av. Dr. Eneas de Carvalho Aguiar, 255, São Paulo, SP 05403-000, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition.
INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implants (CI) programming is based on both the measurement of the minimum levels required to stimulate the auditory nerve and the maximum levels to generate loud, yet comfortable loudness. Seeking for guidance in the adequacy of this programming, the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been gaining space as an important tool in the evaluation of CI users, providing information on the central auditory system. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of mishandling of electrical stimulation levels on speech processor programming on hearing thresholds, speech recognition and cortical auditory evoked potential in adult CI users. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a prospective cross-sectional study, with a sample of adult unilateral CI users of both sexes, aged at least 18 years, post-lingual deafness, with minimum experience of 12 months of device use. Selected subjects should have average free field hearing thresholds with cochlear implant equal to or better than 34 dBHL and monosyllable recognition different from 0%. Individuals who could not collaborate with the procedures or who had no CAEP recordings were excluded. Participants were routinely programmed, and the map was named MO (optimized original map). Then three experimentally wrong maps were made: optimized original map with 10 current units below the maximum comfort level (C), named MC- (map minus C); optimized original map with minus 10 current units at minimum threshold level (T), named MT- (map minus T) and optimized original map with 10 current units above minimum level (T), named MT + (map plus T). In all programs, participants underwent free-field auditory thresholds from 250Hz to 6000Hz, recorded sentences and monosyllabic recognition tests presented at 65dB SPL in quiet and in noise, and free field CAEP evaluation. All tests were performed in an acoustically treated booth, in a randomized order of map presentation. Data were compared by Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Thirty individuals were selected and signed an informed consent form. The MC- map provided worsening of all free field thresholds, quiet and noise speech recognition, and P1 wave latency delay with significant difference from the results with the MO map. The MT- map worsened the hearing thresholds and statistically significantly reduced the P2 wave latency; MT+ map improved free field thresholds except 6000Hz, worsening speech recognition, without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that maximum levels below the optimal thresholds lead to worse cochlear implant performance in both hearing thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and noise, increasing CAEP component P1 latency. On the other hand, the manipulation of minimum threshold levels showed alteration in audibility without significant impact on speech recognition.