The relationship between electrically evoked compound action potential and speech perception: A study in cochlear implant users with short electrode array

Otology and Neurotology

Volumn 31, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1041-1048

  Kim, Jae Ryong ^a,c   Abbas, Paul J ^a,b   Brown, Carolyn J ^a,b   Etler, Christine P ^a   O'Brien, Sara ^a   Kim, Lee Suk ^d  

^a Departments of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^c Inje University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^d Dong A University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Cochlear implant; Electrically evoked compound action potential; Hybrid electrodes

Indexed keywords

ACTION POTENTIAL; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTRODE; ELECTRONICS; ELECTROSTIMULATION; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HEARING TEST; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ADULT; AGED; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; ELECTRIC STIMULATION; ELECTRODES; ELECTRONICS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TELEMETRY;

EID: 77956339257     PISSN: 15317129     EISSN: 15374505     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0b013e3181ec1d92     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Otte J, Schunknecht HF, Kerr AG. Ganglion cell populations in normal and pathological human cochleae. Implications for cochlear implantation. Laryngoscope 1978;88:1231-46.
2. Nadol JB, Young YS, Glynn RJ. Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989;98:411-6.
3. Smith L, Simmons FB. Estimating eighth nerve survival by electrical stimulation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1983;92:19-23.
4. Pfingst BE, Sutton D, Miller JM, Bohne BA. Relation of psychophysical data to histopathology in monkeys with cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol 1981;92:1-13.
5. Prado-Guitierrez P, Fewster LM, Heasman JM, McKay CM, Shepherd RK. Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival. Hear Res 2006;215:47-55.
6. Abbas PJ, Brown CJ. Electrically evoked auditory brainstem response: growth of response with current level. Hear Res 1991;51:123-37.
7. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Bertschy M, et al. Longitudinal assessment of physiological and psychophysical measures in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995;16:439-49.
8. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Hughes M, Tyler R, Parkinson A. Crosselectrode differences in EAP growth and recovery functions measured using the Nucleus NRT software: correlation with speech performance. Presented at the Conference on Implantable Auditory Prostheses, Ailoma, CA, 1999.
9. Roland JT. A model for cochlear implant electrode insertion and force evaluation: results with a new electrode design and insertion. Laryngoscope 2005;115:1325-39.
10. Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ. The development of the Nucleus Freedom Cochlear implant system. Trends Amplif 2006;10:175-200.
11. Gantz BJ, Turner CW. Combining acoustic and electrical hearing. Laryngoscope 2003;113:1726-30.
12. 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;20:45-59.
13. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Gantz BJ. Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. Am J Otol 1998;19:320-7.
14. Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, Gervais JP. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 2000;21:151-63.
15. Peterson FE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962;27:62-70.
16. Etymotic Research. BKB-SIN Speech-in-Noise Test, Version 1.03 (Compact Disk). Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research, 2005: 60007.
17. Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentences lists for partially hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979;13: 108-12.
18. Gantz BJ, Tyler RS, Knutson JF, et al. Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors of performance. Laryngoscope 1988;98:1100-6.
19. Hall RD. Estimation of surviving spiral ganglion cells in the deaf rat using the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response. Hear Res 1990;45:123-36.
20. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK. The use of long-duration current pulses to assess nerve survival. Hear Res 1994;78:11-26.
21. Gordin A, Papsin B, James A, Gordon K. Evolution of cochlear implant arrays result in changes in behavioral and physiological responses in children. Otol Neurotol 2009;30:908-15.
22. Hughes ML, Abbas PJ. Electrophysiologic channel interaction, electrode pitch ranking, and behavioral threshold in straight versus perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode arrays. J Acoust Soc Am 2006;119:1538-47.
23. 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;28:558-70.
24. Tykocinski M, Saunders E, Cohen LT, Treaba C, Briggs RJS. The Contour electrode array: safety study and initial patient trials of a new perimodiolar design. Otol Neurotol 2001;22:33-41.
25. Saunders E, Cohen L, Aschendorff A, et al. Threshold, comfortable level, and impedance changes as a function of electrode-modiolar distance. Ear Hear 2002;23:28SY40.
26. Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Fryauf-Bertschy H, Kelsay D, Gantz BJ. Intraoperative and postoperative electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses in Nucleus cochlear implant users: Implications for the fitting process. Ear Hear 1994;15:168-76.
27. Shallop JK, VanDyke L, Goin DW, Mischke RE. Prediction of behavioral threshold and comfort values for Nucleus 22-channel implant patients from electrical auditory brain stem response test results. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1991;100:896-8.
28. Mahoney MJ, Proctor LAR. The use of averaged electrode voltages to assess the function of Nucleus internal cochlear implant devices in children. Ear Hear 1994;15:177-83.
29. Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ. Sensitivity and specificity of averaged electrode voltage measures in cochlear implant recipients. Ear Hear 2004;25:431-46.