Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the advanced bionics cochlear implant

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 16-27

  Jeon, Eun Kyung ^a   Brown, Carolyn J ^a,b   Etler, Christine P ^a   O'Brien, Sara ^a   Chiou, Li Kuei ^a   Abbas, Paul J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory evoked potential; Cochlear implant; Compound action potential; Electrical stimulation; Neural response imaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BIONICS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DEVICE; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; EVOKED COMPOUND ACTION POTENTIAL; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPLANT; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; LOUDNESS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPUTER INTERFACE; HEARING; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; TELEMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; TELEMETRY; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 77449146174     PISSN: 10500545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.3     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al. (1999) Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 20(1):45-59.
2. Akin I, Kuran G, Saka C, Vural M. (2006) Preliminary results on correlation between neural response imaging and 'most comfortable levels' in cochlear implantation. J Laryngol Otol 120(4): 261-265.
3. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B. (1990) Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 88(3):1385-1391.
4. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. (1998) Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 19(3):320-327.
5. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. (2000) The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 21(2):151-163.
6. Cullington H. (2000) Preliminary neural response telemetry results. Br J Audiol 34(3):131-140.
7. Eisen MD, Franck KH. (2004) Electrically evoked compound action potential amplitude growth functions and HiResolution programming levels in pediatric CII implant subjects. Ear Hear 25(6): 528-538.
8. Franck KH, Norton SJ. (2001) 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 22(4):289-299.
9. Frijns JH, Briaire JJ, de Laat JA, Grote JJ. (2002) Initial evaluation of the Clarion CII cochlear implant: speech perception and neural response imaging. Ear Hear 23(3):184-197.
10. Han DM, Chen XQ, Zhao XT, 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(7):732-735.
11. Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, Gervais JP. (2000) Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear 21 (2):164-174.
12. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, Brown CJ, 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(6):471-486.
13. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK. (1994) The use of longduration current pulses to assess nerve survival. Hear Res 78(1): 11-26.
14. Polak M, Hodges A, Balkany T. (2005) ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otol Neurotol 26(4):639-645.
15. Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JE. (2002) Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol 7(6):335-347.
16. Seyle K, Brown CJ. (2002) Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 23(Suppl.): 72S-79S.
17. Wolfe J, Kasulis H. (2008) Relationships among objective measures and speech perception in adult users of the HiResolution Bionic Ear. Cochlear Implants Int 9(2):70-81.