Clinical use of a system for the automated recording and analysis of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in cochlear implant patients

References

• Brown CJ, Hughes ML, Luk B, Abbas PJ, Wolaver A, Gervais J. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, Wolaver AA, Gervais JP. Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear 2000;21:164–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thai-Van H, Chanal JM, Coudert C, Veuillet E, Truy E, Collet L. Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with the Nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2001;58:153–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, van Dijk JE. Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol 2002;7:335–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan-Neeman R, Henkin Y, Yakir Z, Bloch F, Berlin M, Kronenberg J, NRT-based versus behavioral-based MAP: a comparison of parameters and speech perception in young children. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol 2004;15:57–69.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cafarelli Dees D, Dillier N, Lai WK, von Wallenberg E, van Dijk B, Akdas F, Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiol Neurootol 2005;10:105–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abbas P, Brown C, Shallop J, Firszt J, Hughes M, Hong S, Summary of results using the Nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear 1999;20:45–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillier N, Lai WK, Almqvist B, Frohne C, Muller-Deile J, Stecker M, Measurement of the electrically evoked compound action potential via a neural response telemetry system. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002;111:407–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick JF, Busby PA, Gibson PJ. The development of the Nucleus® FreedomTM Cochlear Implant System. Trends Amplif 2006;10:175–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Battmer RD, Dillier N, Lai WK, Weber BP, Brown C, Gantz BJ, Evaluation of the neural response telemetry (NRT) capabilities of the nucleus research platform 8: initial results from the NRT trial. Int J Audiol 2004;43(Suppl 1):S10–S15.
   Google Scholar
• Gärtner L, Pesch J, Büchner A, Battmer RD, Lenarz T ECAP Messungen mit dem Nucleus CI24RE Implantat und der Custom Sound EP Software: Vergleich der automatischen und manuellen Messergebnisse. 8. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie, 24–26.2.2005, Göttingen, TagungsCD, ISBN 3-9809869-4-4.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen TC. Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current. Hear Res 2009;247:87–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botros A, van Dijk B, Killian M. AutoNRTTM: an automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus® FreedomTM cochlear implant via machine intelligence. Artif Intell Med 2007;40:15–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyle K, Brown CJ. Speech perception using maps based on neural response telemetry measures. Ear Hear 2002;23(1 Suppl):72S–79S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidman MD, Vivek P, Dickinson W. Neural response telemetry results with the nucleus 24 contour in a perimodiolar position. Otol Neurotol 2005;26:620–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 Neurootol 2007;12:113–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller-Deile J, Morsnowski A Intraoperative TECAP- Messungen. 9. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie, 8–11.3.2006, Köln, TagungsCD, ISBN 3-9809869-5-0.
   Google Scholar
• Lai WK, Dillier N. Comparing neural response telemetry amplitude growth functions with loudness growth functions: preliminary results. Ear Hear 2007;28(2 Suppl):42S–45S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willeboer C, Smoorenburg GF. Comparing cochlear implant users' speech performance with processor fittings based on conventionally determined T and C levels or on compound action potential thresholds and live-voice speech in a prospective balanced crossover study. Ear Hear 2006;27:789–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijk B, Botros AM, Battmer RD, Begall K, Dillier N, Hey M, Clinical results of AutoNRTTM, a completely automatic ECAP recording system for cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2007;28:558–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gärtner L, Büchner A, Battmer RD, Lenarz T Anpassung von Cochlea-Implantat-Patienten unter Anwendung eines automatischen Systems zur Aufzeichnung und Auswertung von elektrisch evozierten Summenaktionspotentialen. GMS Curr Posters Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;3:Doc71 (20070425).
   Google Scholar
• Craddock L, Cooper H, Van De Heyning P, Vermeire K, Davies M, Patel J, Comparison between NRT-based MAPs and behaviourally measured MAPs at different stimulation rates – a multicentre investigation. Cochlear Implants Int 2003;4;161–70.
   Google Scholar
• Smoorenburg GF Cochlear implant ear marks. University Medical Centre Utrecht, 2006. ISBN-13: 978-90-9021523-5.
   Google Scholar