Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 115-127

  Holstad, Beth A ^a   Sonneveldt, Valerie G ^a   Fears, Beverly T ^b   Davidson, Lisa S ^c   Aaron, Roxanne J ^a   Richter, Marie ^b   Matusofsky, Maggie ^c   Brenner, Christine A ^a,e   Strube, Michael J ^d   Skinner, Margaret W ^e  

^a Moog Center for Deaf Education   (United States)

^b St Joseph Institute for the Deaf   (United States)

^c CENTRAL INSTITUTE FOR THE DEAF   (United States)

^d WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; AUDIOLOGY; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; ELECTRICALLY EVOKED COMPOUND ACTION POTENTIAL THRESHOLD; ELECTRODE; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; LOUDNESS; MALE; NERVE POTENTIAL; SOUND; SPEECH; TELEMETRY; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD BEHAVIOR; ELECTROSTIMULATION; PHONETICS; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; PHONETICS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TELEMETRY;

EID: 64849097416     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181906c0f     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Abbas, P. J., Brown, C. J., & Etler, C. P. (2006). Electrophysiology and device telemetry. In S. B. Waltzman & N. L. Cohen (Eds.), Cochlear implants (2nd ed., pp. 96-109). New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publisher.
2. Abbas, P. J., Brown, C. J., Shallop, J., et al. (1999). Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear, 20, 45-59. (Pubitemid 29072423)
3. Brown, C. J. (2003). The electrically evoked whole nerve action potential. In H. E. Cullington (Ed.), Cochlear implants: objective measures (pp. 96-129). London: Whurr Publishers.
4. Brown, C. J., Hughes, M. L., Luk, B., et al. (2000). The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear, 21, 151-163. (Pubitemid 30194704)
5. Cafarelli Dees, D., Dillier, N., Lai, W. K., et al. (2005). Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol Neurootol, 10, 105-116. (Pubitemid 40976011)
6. Dillier, N., Lai, W. K., Almqvist, B., et al. (2002). Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) via a neural response telemetry (NRT) system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 111, 407-414. (Pubitemid 34522325)
7. Gordon, K. A., Papsin, B. C., & Harrison, T. V. (2004). Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear, 25, 447-463. (Pubitemid 39332008)
8. Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., & Abbas, P. J. (2004). Sensitivity and specificity of averaged electrode voltage (AEV) measures in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear, 25, 431-446.
9. Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., et al. (2000). Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear, 21, 164-174.
10. Hughes, M. L., Vander Werff, K. R., Brown, C. J., et al. (2001). A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 22, 471-486.
11. James, C. J., Skinner, M. W., Martin, L. F., et al. (2003). An investigation of input level range of the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant system: speech perception performance, program preference, and loudness comfort ratings. Ear Hear, 24, 157-174.
12. Mueller, H. G., & Killion, M. C. (1990). An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J, 43, 14-17.
13. Pavlovic, C. V., Studebaker, G. A., & Sherbecoe, R. L. (1985). An articulation index based procedure for predicting the speech recognition performance of hearing-impaired individuals. J Acoust Soc Am, 80, 50-57.
14. Pavlovic, C. V. (1988). Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. ASHA, 30, 63-65.
15. Potts, L. G., Skinner, M. W., Gotter, B. D., et al. (2007). Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, MAP T and C levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear, 28, 495-511.
16. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
17. Seyle, K., & Brown, C. J. (2002). Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear, 23, 72S-79S. (Pubitemid 34195177)
18. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Demorest, M. E., et al. (1995). Comparison for obtaining thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels with the nucleus cochlear implant system. J Speech Hear Res, 38, 677-689.
19. Skinner, M. W., Holden, T. A., Holden, L. K., et al. (1999). Comparison of two methods for selecting minimum stimulation levels used in programming the Nucleus 22 cochlear implant. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 42, 814-828.
20. Smoorenburg, G. F., Willeboer, C., & van Dijk, J. E. (2002). Speech perception in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol, 7, 335-347. (Pubitemid 36151408)
21. Willeboer, C., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (2006). Comparing cochlear implant users' speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear, 27, 789-798. (Pubitemid 44691238)
22. Zimmerling, M. J., & Hochmair, E. S. (2002). EAP recordings in Ineraid patients - correlations with psychophysical measures and possible implications for patient fitting. Ear Hear, 23, 81-91.