A new approach for the determination of ECAP thresholdsFootnote^†

† 13th International Congress on Cochlear Implants and Other Implantable Auditory Technologies, München, Germany, June 18th to 21st, 2014 and at the 10th Asia Pacific Symposium on Cochlear Implant and Related Sciences (APSCI) Beijing, China, April 30th to May 4th 2015.

References

• Alvarez, I., de la Torre, A., Sainz, M., Roldán, C., Schoesser, H., Spitzer, P. 2010. Using evoked compound action potentials to assess activation of electrodes and predict C-levels in the tempo+ cochlear implant speech processor. Ear and Hearing, 31: 134–145. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181bdb88f
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahmer, A., Baumann, U. 2012. Application of triphasic pulses with adjustable phase amplitude ratio (PAR) for cochlear ECAP recording: I. Amplitude growth functions. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 205: 202–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basta, D., Dahme, A., Todt, I., Ernst, A. 2007. Relationship between intraoperative eCAP thresholds and postoperative psychoacoustic levels as a prognostic tool in evaluating the rehabilitation of cochlear implantees. Audiology & Neuro-otology, 12: 113–118. doi: 10.1159/000097797
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baudhuin, J.L., Hughes, M.L., Goehring, J.L. 2016. A comparison of alternating polarity and forward masking artifact-reduction methods to resolve the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear and Hearing, 37: e247–e255. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000288 doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000288
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevington, P.R., Robinson, K.B. 2003. Data reduction and error analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Botros, A., Psarros, C. 2010. Neural response telemetry reconsidered: I. The relevance of ECAP threshold profiles and scaled profiles to cochlear implant fitting. Ear and Hearing, 31: 367–379. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181c9fd86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briaire, J.J., Frijns, J.H. 2005. Unraveling the electrically evoked compound action potential. Hearing Research, 205(1–2): 143–156. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.03.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown C. 2003. The electrically evoked whole nerve action potential. In: Cullington HE, (ed.) Cochlear Implants — Objective Measures. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, C.J., Abbas, P.J., Gantz, B. 1990. Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: Data from human cochlear implant users. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3): 1385–1391. doi: 10.1121/1.399716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C., Abbas, P., Borland, J., Bertschy, M. 1996. Electrically evoked whole nerve action potentials in ineraid cochlear implant users: responses to different stimulating electrode configurations and comparison to psychophysical responses. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39: 453–467. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3903.453
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown, C.J., Abbas, P.J., Etlert, C.P., O’Brient, S., Oleson, J.J. 2010. Effects of long-term use of a cochlear implant on the electrically evoked compound action potential. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21: 5–15. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C.J., Hughes, M.L., Luk, B., Abbas, P.J., Wolaver, A., Gervais, J. 2000. The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear and Hearing, 21: 151–163. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200004000-00009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cafarelli Dees, D. Dillier, N., Lai, W.K., von Wallenberg, E., van Dijk, B., Akdas, F. et al. 2005. Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiology & Neuro-otology, 10: 105–116. doi: 10.1159/000083366
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho, B., Hamerschmidt, R., Wiemes, G. 2015. Intraoperative neural response telemetry and neural recovery function: a comparative study between adults and children. International Archives Otorhinolaryngologica, 19: 10–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillier, N., Lai, W.K., Almqvist, B., Frohne, C., Müller-Deile, J., Stecker, M. et al. 2002. Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 111: 407–414. doi: 10.1177/000348940211100505
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.A. 1924. The conditions under which χ2 measures the discrepancey between observation and hypothesis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 87: 442–450. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2341149 doi: 10.2307/2341292
   Google Scholar
• Franck, K.H., Norton, S.J. 2001. Estimation of psychophysical levels using the electrically evoked compound action potential measured with the neural response telemetry capabilities of Cochlear Corporation’s CI24M device. Ear and Hearing, 22: 289–299. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200108000-00004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gärtner, L., Lenarz, T., Joseph, G., Büchner, A. 2010. Clinical use of a system for the automated recording and analysis of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in cochlear implant patients. Acta Oto-laryngologica, 130: 724–732. doi: 10.3109/00016480903380539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glassman, E.K., Hughes, M.L. 2013. Determining electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds: a comparison of computer versus human analysis methods. Ear and Hearing, 34: 96–109. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182650abd
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoth, S. 2013. Die Steigung der Diskriminationsfunktion als universelles Maß zur Beurteilung der Güte von Methoden der objektiven Schwellenbestimmung. Zeitschr Audiol, 52: 61–69.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, M.L., Abbas, P.J., Brown, C.J., Gantz, B.J. 2000a. Using electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to facilitate creating MAPs for children with the Nucleus CI24M. Advances in Oto-rhino-laryngology, 57: 260–265. doi: 10.1159/000059125
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hughes, M.L., Brown, C.J., Abbas, P.J., Wolaver, A.A., Gervais, J.P. 2000b. Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Journal of the American Audiology Society, 21: 164–174.
   Google Scholar
• Jeon, E.K., Brown, C.J., Etler, C.P., O’Brien, S., Chiou, L.-K., Abbas, P.J. 2010. Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 21: 16–27. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.1.3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji, F., Liu, K., Yang, S.-m. 2015. Clinical application of electrically evoked compound action potentials. Journal of Otology. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1672293014000038
   Google Scholar
• Lai, W.K., Dillier, N. 2000. A simple two-component model of the electrically evoked compound action potential in the human cochlea. Audiology & Neuro-otology, 5: 333–345. doi: 10.1159/000013899
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, W.K., Dillier, N. 2007. Comparing neural response telemetry amplitude growth functions with loudness growth functions: preliminary results. Ear and Hearing, 28: 42S–45S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3180315104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leake, P.A., Stakhovskaya, O., Hradek, G.T., Hetherington, A.M. 2008. Factors influencing neurotrophic effects of electrical stimulation in the deafened developing auditory system. Hearing Research, 242(1–2): 86–99. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay, C.M., Fewster, L., Dawson, P. 2005. A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming. Ear and Hearing, 26: 38S–44S. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200508001-00006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Robinson, B.K. 1994. The use of long-duration current pulses to assess nerve survival. Hearing Research, 78: 11–26. doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(94)90039-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Rubinstein, J.T., Robinson, B.K., Matsuoka, A.J., Woodworth, G. 1998. Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hearing Research, 119: 142–154. doi: 10.1016/S0378-5955(98)00046-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C.A., Abbas, P.J., Brown, C.J. 2000. An improved method of reducing stimulus artifact in the electrically evoked whole-nerve potential. Ear and Hearing, 21: 280–290. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200008000-00003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C.A., Brown, C.J., Abbas, P.J., Chi, S.-L. 2008. The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hearing Research, 242: 184–197. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muhaimeed, H.A., Anazy, F.A., Hamed, O., Shubair, E. 2010. Correlation between NRT measurement level and behavioral levels in pediatrics cochlear implant patients. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 74: 356–360. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.12.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, A.J., Arcaroli, J., Staller, S.J., Arndt, P.L., Cosgriff, A., Ebinger, K. 2002. The nucleus 24 contour cochlear implant system: adult clinical trial results. Ear and Hearing, 23(1 Suppl.): 41S–48S. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200202001-00005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polak, M., Hodges, A., Balkany, T. 2005. ECAP, ESR and subjective levels for two different nucleus 24 electrode arrays. Otology & Neurotology, 26(4): 639–645. doi: 10.1097/01.mao.0000178145.14010.25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potts, L.G., Skinner, M.W., Gotter, B.D., Strube, M.J., Brenner, C.A. 2007. Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients. Ear and Hearing, 28: 495–511. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc16e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramekers, D., Versnel, H., Strahl, S.B., Klis, S.F., Grolman, W. 2015. Temporary neurotrophin treatment prevents deafness-induced auditory nerve degeneration and preserves function. Journal of Neuroscience, 35: 12331–12345. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0096-15.2015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, L., Simmons, F.B. 1983. Estimating eighth nerve survival by electrical stimulation. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and aryngology, 92: 19–23. doi: 10.1177/000348948309200105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg, G.F., Willeboer, C., van Dijk, J.E. 2002. Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiology & Neuro-otology, 7(6): 335–347. doi: 10.1159/000066154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telmesani, L.M., Said, N.M. 2016. 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, 82: 28–33. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.12.027 doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.12.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaerenberg, B., Smits, C., De Ceulaer, G., Zir, E., Harman, S., Jaspers, N. et al. 2014. Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. The Scientific World Journal, 2014: 501738.
   Google Scholar
• Vlahović, S., Sindija, B., Aras, I., Glunčić, M., Trotić, R. 2012. Differences between electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) and behavioral measures in children with cochlear implants operated in the school age vs. operated in the first years of life. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 76: 731–739. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.02.037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walkowiak, A., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Kostek, B., Skarzynski, H., Szkielkowska, A. et al. 2011. Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. ORL: Journal for Oto-rhino-laryngology and its Related Specialties, 73(4): 189–195. doi: 10.1159/000326892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiten, D.M. 2007. Electro-anatomical models of the cochlear implant. Harvard University – MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar