Intraoperative neural response telemetry as a predictor of performance

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1095-1099

  Cosetti, Maura K ^a   Shapiro, William H ^a   Green, Janet E ^a   Roman, Benjamin R ^a   Lalwani, Anil K ^a   Gunn, Stacey H ^a   Roland, John Thomas ^a   Waltzman, Susan B ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cochlear implants; Compound action potentials; Intraoperative monitoring; Neural response telemetry

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FACIAL NERVE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT MONITORING; PHYSIOLOGY; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES; ELECTROMYOGRAPHY; FACIAL NERVE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956338569     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181ec1b8c     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz B. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;88:1385Y91.
2. Abbas PJ, Brown CJ, Shallop JK, et al. Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999;20:45Y59.
3. Dillier N, Lai WK, Almqvist B, et al. Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:407Y14.
4. van Dijk B, Botros AM, Battmer RD, et al. Clinical results of AutoNRT, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2007;28:558Y70.
5. Alvarez I, de la Torre A, Sainz M, et al. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict Clevels in the Tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear Hear 2010;31:134Y45.
6. Abbas P, Brown CJ, Etler CP. Electrophysiology and device telemetry. In: Waltzman S, Roland JT Jr, eds. Cochlear Implants. New York, NY: Thieme, 2006:96Y109.
7. Holstad BA, Sonneveldt VG, Fears BT, et al. Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2009;30: 115Y27.
8. Botros A, Psarros C. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear Hear 2010;31:367Y79.
9. Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 2004;25:447Y63.
10. Shapiro WH, Huang T, Shaw T, et al. Remote intraoperative monitoring during cochlear implant surgery is feasible and efficient. Otol Neurotol 2008;29:495Y8.
11. McKay CM, Fewster L, Dawson P. A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear Hear 2005;26:38SY44S.
12. Willeboer C, Smoorenburg GF. 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 2006;27:789Y98.
13. Potts LG, Skinner MW, Gotter BD, et al. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2007;28:495Y511.
14. 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;21:151Y63.
15. Morita T, Naito Y, Hirai T, et al. 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 Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2003;260:67Y72.
16. Thai-Van H, Chanal JM, Coudert C, et al. 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 2001;58:153Y62.
17. Thai-Van H, Truy E, Charasse B, et al. 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 2004;115: 2811Y24.
18. Seyle K, Brown CJ. Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 2002;23:72SY9S.
19. 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;7:335Y47.
20. Basta D, Dahme A, Todt I, et al. Relationship between intraoperative ECAP thresholds and postoperative psychoacoustic levels as a prognostic tool in evaluating the rehabilitation of cochlear implantees. Audiol Neurootol 2007;12:113Y8.
21. Kaplan-Neeman R, Henkin Y, Yakir Z, et al. NRT-based versus behavioral-based MAP: a comparison of parameters and speech perception in young children. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2004; 15:57Y69.
22. Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62Y70.
23. Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995;16: 470Y81.
24. Haskins H. A phonetically balanced test of speech discrimination for children. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 1949 (dissertation).
25. Erber N. Auditory Training. Washington, DC: AG Bell Association, 1982.