Electrical compound action potentials recorded with automated neural response telemetry: Threshold changes as a function of time and electrode position

Ear and Hearing

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 104-113

  Spivak, Lynn ^a,b   Auerbach, Charles ^a,c   Vambutas, Andrea ^a,b   Geshkovich, Stella ^a   Wexler, Leslie ^a   Popecki, Barbara ^a  

^a LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c YESHIVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; EVOKED RESPONSE AUDIOMETRY; EXPERT SYSTEM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESIS; TELEMETRY;

ALGORITHMS; AUDIOMETRY, EVOKED RESPONSE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; DEAFNESS; EVOKED POTENTIALS, AUDITORY; EXPERT SYSTEMS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; SOFTWARE; TELEMETRY;

EID: 78651401022     PISSN: 01960202     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ec5d95     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Busby, P., Plant, K., Whitford, L. (2002). Electrode impedance in adults and children using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int, 3, 87-103.
4. 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 system of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol Neurootol, 10, 105-116.
5. DiNardo, W., Ippolito, N., Quaranta, G., et al. (2003). Correlation between NRT mearusrement and behavioural levels in patients with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorinolaryngol Ital, 23, 352-355.
6. Ganz, B. J., Brown, C. J., Abbas, P. J. (1994). Intraoperative measures of electrically evoked auditory nerve compound action potential. Am J Otolaryngol, 15, 137-144.
7. Gordon, K. A., Papsin, B. C., Harrison, R. V. (2004). Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear, 25, 447-463.
8. Guedes, M. C., Brito Neto, R. V., Goffi Gomez, M. V., et al. (2005). Neural response telemetry measures in patients implanted with Nucleus 24. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 5, 660-667.
9. Holstad, B. A., Donnerveldt, V. G., Fears, B.T., et al. (2009). Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral Tand C- Levels in children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear, 30, 115-127.
10. 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.
11. Hughes, M. L., Vander Werff, K. R., Brown, C. J., 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, 471-486.
12. Lai, W. K., Aksit, M., Akdas, F., et al. (2004). Longitudinal behavior of neural response telemetry (NRT) data and clinical implications. Int J Audiol, 43, 252-263.
13. McKay, C. M., Fewster, L., Dawson, P. (2005). A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear Hear, 26:38S- 44S.
14. Morita, T., Naito, Y., Hirai, T., et al. (2003). The relationship between the intraoperative ECAP threshold and postoperative behavioral levels: The difference between postlinguistically deafened adults and prelinguistically deafened pediatric cochlear implant users. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 260, 67-72.
15. 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.
16. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling Using Stata (2nd ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
17. Saunders, E., Cohen, L., Aschendorff, A., et al. (2002). Threshold, comfortable level and impedance changes as a function of electrodemodiolar distance. Ear Hear, 23:28S- 40S.
18. Thai-Van, H., Chanal, J., Coudert, C., et al. (2001). Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: Preliminary report. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 58, 153-162.
19. Tykocinski, M., Cohen, L. T., Cowan, R. (2005). Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol, 26, 948-956.
20. 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.