Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. the relevance of ecap threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 367-379

  Botros, Andrew ^a,b   Psarros, Colleen ^c  

^a Research and Technology Labs   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c Sydney Cochlear Implant Centre   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; QUESTIONNAIRE; TELEMETRY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; AGED; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; HUMANS; LOUDNESS PERCEPTION; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; TELEMETRY;

EID: 77951966496     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c9fd86     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Abbas, P. J., Brown, C. J., & Etler, C. P. (2006). Utility of electrically evoked potentials in cochlear implant users. In: S. Waltzman & T. Roland (Eds). Cochlear Implants (2nd ed.). New York: Thieme Publisher.
2. Abbas, P. J., Brown, C. J., Shallop, J. K., et al. (1999). Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear, 20, 45-59.
3. Abbas, P. J., Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., et al. (2004). Channel interaction in cochlear implant users evaluated using the electrically evoked compound action potential. Audiol Neurootol, 9, 203-213.
4. Botros, A., & Psarros, C. (2010). Neural response telemetry reconsidered: II. The influence of neural population on the ECAP recovery function and refractoriness. Ear Hear, 31, xx-xx.
5. Botros, A., van Dijk, B., & Killian, M. (2007). AutoNRT: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med, 40, 15-28.
6. Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., & Gantz, B. (1990). Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: Data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am, 88, 1385-1391.
7. Brown, C. J., Hughes, M. L., Lopez, S. M., et al. (1999). Relationship between EABR thresholds and levels used to program the CLARION speech processor. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 177, 50-57.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Carhart, R., & Jerger, J. F. (1959). Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disorders, 24, 330-345.
11. Chatterjee, M., Galvin, J. J., Fu, Q.-J., et al. (2006). Effects of stimulation mode, level and location on forward-masked excitation patterns in cochlear implant patients. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 7, 15-25.
12. Craddock, L., Cooper, H., Heyning, P., et al. (2003). Comparison between NRT-based MAPs and behaviourally measured MAPs at different stimulation rates-A multicentre investigation. Cochlear Implants Int, 4, 161-170.
13. Dawson, P. W., Skok, M., & Clark, G. M. (1997). The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear, 18, 156-165.
14. Dillier, N., Lai, W. K., Almqvist, B., et al. (2002). Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol, 111, 407-414.
15. 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 Corporation's CI24M device. Ear Hear, 22, 289-299.
16. Frijns, J. H., de Snoo, S. L., & ten Kate, J. H. (1996). Spatial selectivity in a rotationally symmetric model of the electrically stimulated cochlea. Hear Res, 95, 33-48.
17. Hughes, M. L., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., et al. (2000). Comparison of EAP thresholds to MAP levels in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant: Data from children. Ear Hear, 21, 164-174.
18. Javel, E., & Shepherd, R. K. (2000). Electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve: III. Response initiation sites and temporal fine structure. Hear Res, 140, 45-76.
19. McGill, W. J., & Goldberg, J. P. (1968). A study of the near miss involving Weber's Law and pure-tone intensity discrimination. Percept Psychophys, 4, 105-109.
20. McKay, C. M., Fewster, L., & Dawson, P. (2005). A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear Hear, 26 (Suppl), 38S-44S.
21. McKay, C. M., Henshall, K. R., Farrell, R. J., et al. (2003). A practical method of predicting the loudness of complex electrical stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am, 113, 2054-2063.
22. McKay, C. M., & McDermott, H. J. (1998). Loudness perception with pulsatile electrical stimulation: The effect of interpulse intervals. J Acoust Soc Am, 104, 1061-1074.
23. Miller, C. A., Abbas, P. J., Hu, N., et al. (2009). Auditory nerve responses to pulse train stimuli. In: R. P. Carlyon & G. S. Donaldson (Eds). Abstracts of the 2009 Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses (p, 40).
24. Miller, C. A., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J., et al. (2008). The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hear Res, 242, 184-197.
25. Nelson, D. A., Schmitz, J. L., Donaldson, G. S., et al. (1996). Intensity discrimination as a function of stimulus level with electric stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am, 100, 2393-2414.
26. Patrick, J. F., Busby, P. A., & Gibson, P. J. (2006). The development of the Nucleus Freedom cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif, 10, 175-200.
27. Plant, K., & Law, M.-A. (2007). Comparison of profiles obtained through evoked potential and behavioural T-and C-level measures. In: S. Burdo (Ed). Abstracts of the Fifth International Symposium on Objective Measures in Cochlear and Brainstem Implants (p, 69).
28. Plant, K., Law, M.-A., Whitford, L., et al. (2005). Evaluation of streamlined programming procedures for the Nucleus cochlear implant with the Contour electrode array. Ear Hear, 26, 651-668.
29. 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.
30. Seyle, K., & Brown, C. J. (2002). Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear, 23 (Suppl 1), 72S-79S.
31. 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 Audiol, 11, 203-213.
32. 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.
33. Stypulkowski, P. H., & van den Honert, C. (1984). Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve: I. Compound action potential recordings. Hear Res, 14, 205-223.
34. Thai-Van, H., Truy, E., Charasse, B., et al. (2004). Modeling the relationship between psychophysical perception and electrically evoked compound action potential threshold in young cochlear implant recipients: Clinical implications for implant fitting. Clin Neurophysiol, 115, 2811-2824
35. van Dijk, B., Botros, A. M., Battmer, R. D., et al. (2007). Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 28, 558-570.
36. Vasey, M. W., & Thayer, J. F. (1987). The continuing problem of false positives in repeated measures ANOVA in psychophysiology: A multivariate solution. Psychophysiology, 24, 479-486.
37. Viemeister, N. F. (1988). Intensity coding and the dynamic range problem. Hear Res, 34, 267-274.
38. 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.
39. 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.