Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 637-640

  Caner, Gül ^a,b   Olgun, Levent ^a   Gültekin, Gürol ^a   Balaban, Muzaffer ^a  

^a Izmir Research and Training Hospital   (Turkey)

^b NONE   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Auditory evoked potentials; Cochlear implants; Electrically evoked stapedius reflex; Neural response imaging

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC REFLEX; ACTION POTENTIAL; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING; HUMAN; NEURAL RESPONSE IMAGING; NEUROIMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY; RATING SCALE;

ACTION POTENTIALS; AUDITORY BRAIN STEM IMPLANTS; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS, BILATERAL; HUMANS; MALE; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; NEURONS; PROSTHESIS FITTING; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REFLEX, ACOUSTIC; SPEECH RECEPTION THRESHOLD TEST; STAPEDIUS;

EID: 34547823900     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/mao.0b013e3180577919     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. 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;21:151-63.
2. 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;7:335-47.
3. Franck KH, Norton SJ. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation's CI24M Device. Ear Hear 2001;22:289-99.
4. Gordon K, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 2004;25:447-63.
5. Frijns JHM, Briaire JJ, de Laat JAPM, et al. Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 2002;23:184-97.
6. Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT, et al. Comparisons between neural response imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII bionic ear users with HiResolution sound processing strategies. Acta Otolaryngol 2005;125:732-5.
7. Hodges AV, Butts S, Dolan-Ash S, et al. Using electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds to fit the CLARION cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:64-8.
8. Allum JH, Greisiger R, Probst R. Relationship of intraoperative electrically evoked stapedius reflex thresholds to maximum comfortable loudness levels of children with cochlear implants. Int J Audiol 2002;41:93-9.
9. Cullington H. Cochlear Implants: Objective Measures. London, UK: Whurr Publishers, 2003.
10. Eisen MD, Franck KH. Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects. Ear Hear 2004;25:528-38.