Relationship between intraoperative eCAP thresholds and postoperative psychoacoustic levels as a prognostic tool in evaluating the rehabilitation of cochlear implantees

Audiology and Neurotology

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 113-118

  Basta, Dietmar ^a,c   Dahme, Andreas ^b   Todt, Ingo ^a   Ernst, Arne ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b Cochlear Implant Rehabilitation Center ^*  (Germany)

^c Department of ENT at Ukb ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Prediction of rehabilitation development; Psychoacoustic level; Speech recognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA POTENTIAL; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DISEASE DURATION; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NERVE POTENTIAL; PEROPERATIVE CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH; SPEECH REHABILITATION;

ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 33846785392     PISSN: 14203030     EISSN: 14219700     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000097797     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Battmer RD, Feldmeier I, Kohlenberg A, Lenarz T: Performance of the new Clarion speech processor 1.2 in quiet and in noise. Am J Otol 1997;18:144-146.
2. Battmer RD, Gupta SP, Allum-Mecklenburg DJ, Lenarz T: Factors influencing cochlear implant perceptual performance in 132 adults. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995;166:185-187.
3. Blandy S, Lutman M: Hearing threshold levels and speech recognition in noise in 7-year-olds. Int J Audiol 2005;44:435-443.
4. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B: Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:1385-1391.
5. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ: Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998;19:320-327.
6. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wola ver A, Gervais J: 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.
7. Di Nardo W, Ippolito S, Quaranta N, Cadoni G, Galli J: Correlation between NRT measurement and behavioural levels in patients with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2003;23:352-355.
8. Dillier N, Lai W, Almqvist B, Frohne C, Muller-Deile J, Stecker M, von Wallenberg E: Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:407-414.
9. 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.
10. Franck KH: Pediatric cochlear implantation: candidacy evaluation and management. Pediatr Case Rev 2002;2:100-111.
11. 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 CI24M device. Ear Hear 2001;22:289-299.
12. Gibson WP, Rennie M, Psarros C: Outcome after cochlear implantation and auditory verbal training in terms of speech perception, speech production and language. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000;57:250-253.
13. Gordon K, Papsin BC, Harrison RV: Programming cochlear implant stimulation levels in infants and children with a combination of objective measures. Int J Audiol 2004;43:28-32.
14. Kaplan-Neeman R, Henkin Y, Yakir Z, Bloch F, Berlin M, Kronenberg J, Migirov L, Hildesheimer M, Muchnik C: NRT-based versus behavioral-based MAP: a comparison of parameters and speech perception in young children. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2004;15:57-69.
15. Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR: Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005;116:1235-1246.
16. Kileny PR, Zwolan TA, Ashbaugh C: The influence of age at implantation on performance with a cochlear implant in children. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:42-46.
17. Mason S: Electrophysiologic and objective monitoring of the cochlear implant during surgery: implementation, audit and outcomes. Int J Audiol 2004;43:33-38.
18. Mason SM, Cope Y, Garnham J, O'Donoghue GM, Gibbin KP: Intra-operative recordings of electrically evoked auditory nerve action potentials in young children by use of neural response telemetry with the nucleus C124M cochlear implant. Br J Audiol 2001;35:225-235.
19. Moller AR: Neuronal Plasticity and Disorders of the Nervous System. Atlanta, Humana Press, 2006.
20. Nikolopoulos TP, Gibbin KP, Dyar D: Predicting speech perception outcomes following cochlear implantation using Nottingham children's implant profile (NChIP). Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2004;68:137-141.
21. Polak M, Hodges A, Balkany T: ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:639-645.
22. Seyle K, Brown CJ: Speech perception using maps based on neuronal response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 2002;23:72S-79S.
23. Simser JI: The use of auditory-verbal techniques in developing hearing potential. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1997;52:294-296.
24. Thai-Van H, Chanal JM, Coudert C, Veuillet E, Truy E, Collet L: Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2001;58:153-162.
25. Yukawa K, Cohen L, Blamey P, Pyman B, Tungvachirakul V, O'Leary S: Effects of insertion depth of cochlear implant electrodes upon speech perception. Audiol Neurootol 2004;9:163-172.