Literature DB >> 34020316

Using the electrically-evoked compound action potential (ECAP) interphase gap effect to select electrode stimulation sites in cochlear implant users.

Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac1, Teresa A Zwolan2, Bryan E Pfingst3.   

Abstract

Studies in cochlear implanted animals show that the IPG Effect for ECAP growth functions (i.e., the magnitude of the change in ECAP amplitude growth function (AGF) slope or peak amplitude when the interphase gap (IPG) is increased) can be used to estimate the densities of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) near the electrode stimulation and recording sites. In humans, the same ECAP IPG Effect measures correlate with speech recognition performance. The present study examined the efficacy of selecting electrode sites for stimulation based on the IPG Effect, in order to improve performance of CI users on speech recognition tasks. We measured the ECAP IPG Effect for peak amplitude in adult (>18 years old) CI users (N= 18 ears), and created experimental programs to stimulate electrodes with either the highest or lowest ECAP IPG Effect for peak amplitude. Subjects also listened to a program without any electrodes deactivated. In a subset of subject ears (11/18), we compared performance differences between the experimental programs to post-operative computerized tomography (CT) scans to examine underlying factors that might contribute to the efficacy of an electrode site-selection approach. For sentences-in-noise, average performance was better when subjects listened to the experimental program that stimulated electrodes with the highest rather than the lowest IPG Effect for ECAP peak amplitude. A similar pattern was noted for transmission and perception of consonant place cues in a consonant recognition task. However, on average, performance when listening to a program with higher IPG Effect values was equal to that when listening with all electrodes activated. Results also suggest that scalar location (scala tympani or vestibuli) should be considered when using an ECAP-based electrode site-selection procedure to optimize CI performance.
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implants; ECAPs; Neural health; Speech recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34020316      PMCID: PMC8372532          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2021.108257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.672


  59 in total

1.  Cognitive predictors of improvements in adults' spoken word recognition six months after cochlear implant activation.

Authors:  Gitry Heydebrand; Sandra Hale; Lisa Potts; Brenda Gotter; Margaret Skinner
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 1.854

Review 2.  Importance of cochlear health for implant function.

Authors:  Bryan E Pfingst; Ning Zhou; Deborah J Colesa; Melissa M Watts; Stefan B Strahl; Soha N Garadat; Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Cameron L Budenz; Yehoash Raphael; Teresa A Zwolan
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Training of Speech Perception in Noise in Pre-Lingual Hearing Impaired Adults With Cochlear Implants Compared With Normal Hearing Adults.

Authors:  Yossi Bugannim; Daphne Ari-Even Roth; Doreen Zechoval; Liat Kishon-Rabin
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.311

4.  Initial Results With Image-guided Cochlear Implant Programming in Children.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Andrea J Hedley-Williams; Linsey Sunderhaus; Benoit M Dawant; Robert F Labadie; Stephen M Camarata; René H Gifford
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  Auditory-nerve responses to varied inter-phase gap and phase duration of the electric pulse stimulus as predictors for neuronal degeneration.

Authors:  Dyan Ramekers; Huib Versnel; Stefan B Strahl; Emma M Smeets; Sjaak F L Klis; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-28

6.  Relationships between Intrascalar Tissue, Neuron Survival, and Cochlear Implant Function.

Authors:  Donald L Swiderski; Deborah J Colesa; Aaron P Hughes; Yehoash Raphael; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-20

7.  Image-guidance enables new methods for customizing cochlear implant stimulation strategies.

Authors:  Jack H Noble; Robert F Labadie; René H Gifford; Benoit M Dawant
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.802

8.  Assessing the Relationship Between the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential and Speech Recognition Abilities in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Kara C Schvartz-Leyzac; Bryan E Pfingst
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  In vivo estimates of the position of advanced bionics electrode arrays in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Margaret W Skinner; Timothy A Holden; Bruce R Whiting; Arne H Voie; Barry Brunsden; J Gail Neely; Eugene A Saxon; Timothy E Hullar; Charles C Finley
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  2007-04

10.  Current Focusing to Reduce Channel Interaction for Distant Electrodes in Cochlear Implant Programs.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Julie G Arenberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2018 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.