Publication Cover
Cochlear Implants International
An Interdisciplinary Journal for Implantable Hearing Devices
Volume 19, 2018 - Issue 3
940
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original articles

Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MED-EL cochlear implant users

, , , &
Pages 153-161 | Published online: 02 Jan 2018
 

Abstract

Introduction: Electrically evoked compound action potentials (eCAP) and electrically evoked stapedius reflexes are the most frequently used objective measurements for programming a cochlear implant (CI) audio processor. Objective methods are particularly beneficial for children and CI users that encounter difficulties in providing feedback. In this study, we compared the threshold and the slope of the eCAP amplitude growth function with the electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold (eSRT) in pediatric CI users. Furthermore, the duration times required to perform eCAP and eSRT recordings were compared.

Methods: During a regular fitting session, 52 pediatric CI users with recordable eSRTs having MED-EL devices (MED-EL GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria) were programmed using the eSRT fitting method. The eCAP thresholds and the slopes of the amplitude growth function were measured across one apical, one medial, and one basal electrode contact.

Results: There was a weak to medium correlation between eCAP thresholds and eSRTs. The eCAP threshold profile did not correlate with the eSRT profile. Typically ECAP thresholds were at a lower stimulation charge than eSRTs with only 4/152 being higher. An eCAP threshold was found on 152/156 electrode contacts with eSRTs. On average, the eCAP measurements took 4.2 times longer to record per electrode than eSRT measurements (median durations 35 s vs. 120 s).

Conclusion: eSRTs were significantly higher than eCAP thresholds and eSRT and eCAP profiles were generally different from each other reducing the clinical relevance of eCAP testing for setting MCLs across the array. Additionally, the eSRT measurements were faster to record than the eCAP threshold and slope determination measurements.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Laura Kerr (MED-EL) for editing a version of this article as well as Melodi Kosaner for doing preliminary statistics.

Disclaimer statement

Contributors: None.

Funding: None.

Conflicts of interest: None

Ethics approval: None.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 380.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.