Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 134-145

  Alvarez, Isaac ^a   De La Torre, Angel ^a   Sainz, Manuel ^a,b   Roldán, Cristina ^b   Schoesser, Hansjoerg ^c   Spitzer, Philipp ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO SAN CECILIO   (Spain)

^c MED EL GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; ELECTRODE; EQUIPMENT; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INFANT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROSTHESIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; DEAFNESS; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FITTING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 75149173959     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181bdb88f     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Alvarez, I., De La Torre, A., Sainz, M., et al. (2007). Generalized alternating stimulation: A novel method to reduce stimulus artifact In electrically evoked compound action potentials. J Neurosci Methods, 165, 95-103.
2. TM: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus FreedomTM cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med, 40, 15-28.
3. Brown, C. J., Hughes, M. L., Luk, B., et al. (2000). The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program Nucleus 24 speech processor: Data from adults. Ear Hear, 21, 151-163.
4. Brown, C. J. (2003). Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 11, 383-387.
5. Caner, G., Olgun, L., Gultekin, G., et al. (2007). Optimizing fitting In children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold. Otol Neurotol, 28, 637-640.
6. Clark, G. (2003). Cochlear Implants: Fundamentals and Applications. Engineering (p, 488). New York: Springer Publisher.
7. Cullington, H. (2000). Preliminary neural response telemetry results. Br J Audiol, 34, 131-140.
8. Dawson, P. W., Vandali, A. E., Knight, M. R., et al. (2007). Clinical evaluation of expanded input dynamic range in nucleus cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 163-176.
9. Di Nardo, W., Ippolito, S., Quaranta, N., et al. (2003). Correlation between NRT measurement and behavioural levels in patients with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 23, 352-355.
10. Franck, K. H., & Norton, S. J. (2001). Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of cochlear corporations CI24M device. Ear Hear, 22, 289-299.
11. Franck, K. H. (2002). A model of a nucleus 24 cochlear implant fitting protocol based on the electrically evoked whole nerve action potential. Ear Hear, 23, 67S-71S.
12. Fu, Q. J., & Shannon, R. V. (1999). Effect of acoustic dynamic range on phoneme recognition in quiet and noise by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 106, L65-L70.
13. Han, D. M., Chen, X. Q., Zhao, X. T., et al. (2005). 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, 125, 732-735.
14. Hodges, A., Balkany, T., Ruth, R., et al. (1997). Electrical middle ear muscle reflex: Use in cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 117, 255-261.
15. Holstad, B. A., Sonneveldt, V. G., Fears, B. T., et al. (2009). Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 30, 115-127.
16. 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.
17. Hughes, M. L. (2006). Fundamentals of clinical ECAP measures In cochlear implants: Part I-Use of the ECAP in Speech Processor Programming. Audiology Online. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/ article-detail.asp?article-id-1569.
18. King, J., Polak, M., Hodges, A., et al. (2004). Prediction of Maximum Comfortable Levels (MCL) using Neural Response Telemetry (NRT) in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant. Assoc Res Otolaryngol, Abstract 882.
19. King, J., Polak, M., Hodges, A., et al. (2006). Use of Neural Response Telemetry Measures to Objectively Set the Comfort Levels in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant. J Am Acad Audiol, 17, 413-431.
20. Lai, W. K., & Dillier, N. (2005). NRT Double Peaks revisited. Fourth International Symposium and Workshops Objectives Measures in Cochlear Implants, Hannover, Germany, June 2005.
21. McKay, C. (2005). The trouble with NRT: Insights from a Loudness Model. Fourth International Symposium and Workshops Objectives Measures in Cochlear Implants, Hannover, Germany, June 2005.
22. Morita, T., Naito, Y., Hirai, T., et al. (2003). The relationship between the intraoperative ECAP threshold and postoperative behavioral levels: The difference between postlingually deafened adults and prelingually deafened pediatric cochlear implant users. Eur Archiv Otorhinolaryngol, 260, 67-72.
23. Polak, M., Hodges, A., & Balkany, T. (2005). ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different Nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol, 26, 639-645.
24. Potts, L. G., Skinner, M. W., Gotter, B. D., et al. (2007). Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant recipients. Ear Hear, 28, 495-511.
25. Ruiz, J. M., Sainz, M., De La Torre, A., et al. (2002). Application of EABR for fitting cochlear implant processors. Sixth European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, Las Palmas, Spain, February 2002.
26. Sainz, M., De La Torre, A., Roldan, C., et al. (2002). Statistical analysis of programming maps in cochlear implants. Applications for fitting the processor. Sixth European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation, Las Palmas, Spain, February 2002.
27. Sainz, M., De La Torre, A., Roldan, C., et al. (2003). Analysis of programming maps and its application for balancing multichannel cochlear implants. Int J Audiol, 42, 43-51.
28. Seyle, K., & Brown, C. J. (2002). Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear, 23, 72-79.
29. Skinner, M. W., Holden, L. K., Holden, T. A., et al. (2000). Effect of stimulation rate on cochlear implant recipients thresholds and maximum acceptable loudness levels. J Am Acad Audio, 11, 203-213.
30. Smoorenburg, G. F., Willeboer, C. S., & 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 Neurotol, 7, 335-347.
31. Spitzer, P., Zierhofer, C., & Hochmair, E. (2006). Algorithm for multi-curve-fitting with shared parameters and a possible application in evoked compound action potential measurements. Biomed Eng Online, 5, 1-8.
32. Thai-Van, H., Chanal, J. M., Coudert, C., et al. (2001). 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, 58, 153-162.
33. Vargas, J. L., Sainz, M., De La Torre, A., et al. (2002). On the use of stapedious reflex for fitting cochlear implant processors. Sixth European Symposium on Paediatric Cochlear Implantation.
34. Willeboer, C., & Smoorenburg, G. F. (2006). Comparing cochlear implant users speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or on compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear, 27, 789-798.
35. Zeng, F. G., Grant, G., Niparko, J., et al. (2002). Speech dynamic range and its effect on cochlear implant performance. J Acoust Soc Am, 111, 377-386.
36. Zierhofer, C. (2003). Multichannel cochlear implant with neural response telemetry. US Patent 6600955.