Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses

Current Opinion in Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 383-387

  Brown, Carolyn J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory; Auditory brainstem response; Auditory nerve response; Cochlear implants; Electrical stimulation; Evoked potentials

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ALGORITHM; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY RESPONSE; COCHLEAR NERVE; COGNITION; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ELECTRODE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EVOKED BRAIN STEM AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MIDDLE EAR; OTOACOUSTIC EMISSION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACTION POTENTIALS; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY, BRAIN STEM; HUMANS;

EID: 0141729411     PISSN: 10689508     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00020840-200310000-00013     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Kiang NYS, Moxon EC: Physiological considerations in artificial stimulation of the inner ear. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1972, 81:714-730.
2. Smith L, Simmons FB: Estimating eighth nerve survival by electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1983, 92:19-23.
3. Kileny PR, Zwolan TA, Zimmerman-Phillips S, et al.: Electrically evoked auditory brain-stem response in paediatric patients with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1994, 120:1083-1090.
4. Fifer RC, Novak MA: Prediction of auditory nerve survival in humans using the electrical auditory brainstem response. Am J Otol 1991, 12:350-366.
5. Gantz BJ, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ: Intraoperative measures of electrically evoked auditory nerve compound action potential. Am J Otol 1994, 15:137-144.
6. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B: Electrically evoked whole-nerve potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1990, 88:1385-1391.
7. Mason S: Keynote lecture: objective measures. Am J Otol 1997, 18:S84-S87.
8. Kileny PR, Zwolan T, Zimmerman-Phillips S, et al.: A comparison of round-window and transtympanic promontory electric stimulation in cochlear candidates. Ear Hear 1992, 13:294-299.
9. Nikolopoulos TP, Masson SM, O'Donoghue GM, et al.: Integrity of the auditory pathway in young children with congenital and postmeningitic deafness. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999, 108:327-330.
10. Nikolopoulos TP, Mason SM, Gibbin KP, et al.: The prognostic value of promontory electric auditory brain stem response in pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2000, 21:236-241.
11. Makhdoum MJ, Groenen PA, Snik AF, et al.: Intra- and inter- individual correlations between auditory evoked potentials and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 1998, 27:13-20.
12. Kubo T, Yamamoto K, Iwaki T, et al.: Significance of auditory evoked responses (EABR and P300) in cochlear implant subjects. Acta Otolaryngol 2001, 121:257-261.
13. Firszt JB, Chambers RD, Kraus N: Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures. Ear Hear 2002, 23:516-531.
14. Gallego S, Truy E, Morgon A, et al.: EABRs and surface potentials with a transcutaneous multielectrode cochlear implant. Acta Otolaryngol 1997, 117:164-168.
15. Gallego S, Frachet B, Micheyl C, et al.: Cochlear implant performance and electrically-evoked brain-stem response characteristics. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998, 108:521-525.
16. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Fryauf-Bertschy H, et al.: Intraoperative and postoperative electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses in Nucleus cochlear implant users: implications for the fitting process. Ear Hear 1994, 15:168-176.
17. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Lopez SM, et al.: Relationship between EABR thresholds ad levels used to program the Clarion speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999, 117:50-57.
18. Mason S, Sheppard S, Garnham C, et al.: Improving the relationship of intraoperative EABR threshold to T-level in young children receiving the Nucleus cochlear implant. In Advances in Cochlear Implants. Edited by Hochmair-Desoyer IJ, Hochmair ES. Wein: Manz, Austria; 1994:44-49.
19. Shallop JK, VanDyke L, Goin DW, et al.: Prediction of behavioural threshold and comfort values for Nucleus 22-channel implant patients from electrical auditory brain stem response test results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991, 100:896-898.
20. Firszt JB, Rotz LA, Chambers RD, et al.: Electrically evoked potentials recorded in adult and pediatric CLARION implant users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1999, 177:58-63.
21. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, et al.: The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 2000, 21:151-163.
22. Kim LS, Kang MK, Park HS, et al.: Electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses in cochlear implant patients. Adv Otorhinoloryngol 1997, 52:92-95.
23. Cords SM, Reuter G, Issing PR, et al.: A silastic positioner for a modiolus-hugging position of intracochlear electrodes: electrophysiologic effects. Am J Otol 2000, 21:212-217.
24. Pasanisi E, Vincenti V, Bacciu A, et al.: The nucleus contour electrode array: an electrophysiological study. Laryngoscope 2002, 112:1653-1656.
25. Buss E, Labadie RF, Brown CJ, et al.: Outcome of cochlear implantation in pediatric auditory neuropathy. Otol Neurotol 2002, 23:328-332.
26. Shallop JK, Peterson A, Facer GW, et al.: Cochlear implants in five cases of auditory neuropathy: postoperative findings and progress. Laryngoscope 2001, 111:555-562.
27. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ: Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus Cl24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998, 19:320-327.
28. Shallop JK, Facer GW, Peterson A: Neural response telemetry with the Nucleus Cl24M cochJear implant. Laryngoscope 1999, 109:1755-1759.
29. Lai WK, Dillier N: A simple two-component model of the electrically evoked compound action potential in the human cochlea. Audiol Neurootol 2000, 5:333-345.
30. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Brown CJ: An improved method of reducing stimulus artifact in the electrically evoked whole-nerve potential. Ear Hear 2000, 2:280-290.
31. Dillier N, Lau WK, Almqvist B, et al.: Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002, 111:407-414.
32. Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al.: Summary of results using the Nucleus Cl24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999, 20:45-59.
33. Frijns JHM, Briaire JJ, de Laat J, et al.: Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 2002, 23:184-197.
34. Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, et al.: Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear 2000, 21:164-174.
35. Mason SM, Cope Y, Garnham J, et al.: Intra-operative recordings of electrically evoked auditory nerve action potentials in young children by use of neural response telemetry with the Nucleus Cl24M cochlear implant. Br J Audiol 2001, 35:225-235.
36. Gordon KA, Ebinger KA, Gilden JE, et al.: Neural response telemetry in 12- to 24-month old children. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2002, 189:42-48.
37. Cullington H: Preliminary neural response telemetry results. Br J Audiol 2000, 34:131-140.
38. Thai-Van H, Chanal JM, Coudert C, et al.: Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int J Ped Otorhinol 2001, 58:153-162.
39. Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JE: Speech perception in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol 2002, 7:335-347. A novel approach to using NRT to predict MAP levels with the Nucleus system-including performance data using the NRT-based MAPs.
40. Franck KH, Norton SJ: Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's Cl24M device. Ear Hear 2001, 22:289-299.
41. Franck KH: A model of a Nucleus 24 cochlear implant fitting protocol based on the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential. Ear Hear 2002, 23(suppl 1):67S-71S.
42. Seyle K, Brown CJ: Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 2002, 23(suppl 1):72S-79S.
43. Rubinstein JT, Parkinson WS, Tyler RS, et al.: Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria. Am J Otol 1999, 20:445-452.
44. Turner C, Mehr M, Hughes M, et al.: Within-subject predictors of speech recognition in cochlear implants: a null result. Acoustic Research Letters Online (Acoustical Society of America) 2002, 95-100.
45. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, et al.: A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001, 22:471-486.