Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use

International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology

Volumn 82, Issue , 2016, Pages 28-33

  Telmesani, Laila M ^a   Said, Nithreen M ^a,b  

^a IMAM ABDULRAHMAN BIN FAISAL UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

^b AIN SHAMS UNIVERSITY   (Egypt)

Author keywords

Auditory response; Cochlear implant; Cochlear nerve; Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP); Neural response telemetry (NRT)

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; AUDITORY RESPONSE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COCHLEAR NERVE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRICALLY EVOKED COMPOUND ACTION POTENTIAL; EVOKED RESPONSE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; MALE; NERVE POTENTIAL; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT DURATION; ACTION POTENTIAL; ADVERSE EFFECTS; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; HEARING LOSS; INFANT; INNER EAR; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROCEDURES;

ACTION POTENTIALS; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COCHLEA; COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COCHLEAR NERVE; EAR, INNER; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; INFANT; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD;

EID: 84963686088     PISSN: 01655876     EISSN: 18728464     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.12.027     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sun J.C., Skinner M.W., Liu S.Y., Huang S.T. Effect of speech processor program modifications on cochlear implant recipients' threshold and maximum acceptable loudness levels. Am. J. Audiol. 1999, 8:128-136.
2. Basta D., Dahme A., Todt I., Ernst A. Relationship between intraoperative eCAP thresholds and postoperative psychoacoustic levels as a prognostic tool in evaluating the rehabilitation of cochlear implantees. Audiol. Neurotol. 2007, 12:113-118.
3. Brown C.J., Hughes M.L., Luk B. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the Nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear. 2000, 21:151-163.
4. DiNardo W., Ippolito N., Quaranta G. Correlation between NRT measurement and behavioural levels in patients with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorinolaryngol. Ital. 2003, 23:352-355.
5. Cafarelli D., Dillier N., Lai W.K. Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry system of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol. Neurootol. 2005, 10:105-116.
6. McKay C.M., Fewster L., Dawson P. A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear Hear. 2005, 26:38S-44S.
7. Tanamati L.F., Bevilacqua M.C., Costa O.A. Longitudinal study of the ecap measured in children with cochlear implants. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2009, 75(1):90-96.
8. Morita T., Naito Y., Hirai T. 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. 2003, 260:67-72.
9. Lai W.K., Aksit M., Akdas F. Longitudinal behavior of neural response telemetry (NRT) data and clinical implications. Int. J. Audiol. 2004, 43:252-263.
10. Hughes M., Vander Werff K., Brown C., Abbas P., Kelsay D., Teagle H. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in Nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2001, 22:471-486.
11. Gordon K., Papsin B., Harrison R. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear. 2004, 25:447-463.
12. Spivak L., Auerbach C., Vambutas A., Geshkovich S., Wexler L., Popecki B. Electrical compound action potentials recorded with automated neural response telemetry: threshold changes as a function of time and electrode position. Ear Hear. 2010, 32:104-113.
13. Busby P., Plant K., Whitford L. Electrode impedance in adults and children using the nucleus 24 cochlear implant system. Cochlear Implants Int. 2002, 3:87-103.
14. Tykocinski M., Cohen L.T., Cowan R. Measurement and analysis of access resistance and polarization impedance in cochlear implant recipients. Otol. Neurotol. 2005, 26:948-956.
15. Hughes M., Brown C., Abbas P., Wolaver A., Gervais J. Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear. 2000, 21(2):164-174.
16. Thai Van H., Chanal J.M., Coudert C., Veuillet E., Truy E., Collet L. Relationship between NRT measurement and behavioral levels in children with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2001, 58:153-162.
17. Henkin Y., Kaplan-Neemana R., Muchnika C., Kronenbergc J., Hildesheimera M. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24 M cochlear implant. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2003, 67:873-880.
18. Pfingst B.E. Changes over time in thresholds for electrical stimulation of the cochlea. Hear. Res. 1990, 50:225-236.
19. Miller A.L., Morris D.J., Pfingst B.E. Effects of time after deafening and implantation on guinea pig electrical detection thresholds. Hear. Res. 2000, 144:175-186.
20. Xu J., Shepherd R.K., Millard R.E., Clark G.M. Chronic electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve at high stimulus rates: a physiological and histopathological study. Hear. Res. 1997, 105:1-29.
21. Kawano A., Seldon H.L., Clark G.M., Ramsden R.T., Raine C.H. Intracochlear factors contributing to psychophysical precepts following cochlear implantation. Acta Otolaryngol. (Stockh.) 1998, 118:313-326.
22. Shapiro W., Walzman S. Changes in electrical thresholds over time in young children implanted with the Nucleus cochlear prosthesis, in: G.M. Clark, R.S.C. Cowan, International Cochlear Implant, Speech and Hearing Symposium*/Melbourne. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 1995, 104(166):177-178.
23. Mason S. Eletrophysiologic and objective monitoring of the cochlear implant during surgery: implementation, audit and outcomes. Int. J. Audiol. 2004, 43:33-41.
24. Dees D.C., et al. Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI 24M cochlear implant system. Audiol. Neurootol. 2005, 10:105-121.