Modeling of Auditory Neuron Response Thresholds with Cochlear Implants

The quality of the prosthetic-neural interface is a critical point for cochlear implant efficiency. It depends not only on technical and anatomical factors such as electrode position into the cochlea (depth and scalar placement), electrode impedance, and distance between the electrode and the stimulated auditory neurons, but also on the number of functional auditory neurons. The efficiency of electrical stimulation can be assessed by the measurement of e-CAP in cochlear implant users. In the present study, we modeled the activation of auditory neurons in cochlear implant recipients (nucleus device). The electrical response, measured using auto-NRT (neural responses telemetry) algorithm, has been analyzed using multivariate regression with cubic splines in order to take into account the variations of insertion depth of electrodes amongst subjects as well as the other technical and anatomical factors listed above. NRT thresholds depend on the electrode squared impedance (β = −0.11 ± 0.02, P < 0.01), the scalar placement of the electrodes (β = −8.50 ± 1.97, P < 0.01), and the depth of insertion calculated as the characteristic frequency of auditory neurons (CNF). Distribution of NRT residues according to CNF could provide a proxy of auditory neurons functioning in implanted cochleas.

[1]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Clinical Results of AutoNRT,™ a Completely Automatic ECAP Recording System for Cochlear Implants , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[2]  Andrew Botros,et al.  Neural Response Telemetry Reconsidered: I. The Relevance of ECAP Threshold Profiles and Scaled Profiles to Cochlear Implant Fitting , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Jan Kiefer,et al.  Combining perimodiolar electrode placement and atraumatic insertion properties in cochlear implantation – fact or fantasy? , 2006, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[4]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[5]  G M Clark,et al.  Surgical implications of perimodiolar cochlear implant electrode design: avoiding intracochlear damage and scala vestibuli insertion , 2001, Cochlear implants international.

[6]  R. Battmer,et al.  Effect of changing pulse rate on profile parameters of perceptual thresholds and loudness comfort levels and relation to ECAP thresholds in recipients of the Nucleus CI24RE device , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[7]  Thomas Klenzner,et al.  Quality Control After Insertion of the Nucleus Contour and Contour Advance Electrode in Adults , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[8]  Miss A.O. Penney.  (b) , 1974, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[9]  Aaas News,et al.  Book Reviews , 1893, Buffalo Medical and Surgical Journal.

[10]  Carolyn J. Brown,et al.  Adaptation of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Recorded from Nucleus CI24 Cochlear Implant Users , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[11]  A. Beynon,et al.  Factors Affecting Auditory Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: An Update with 2251 Patients , 2012, Audiology and Neurotology.

[12]  C. G. Wright,et al.  Round Window Insertion of Precurved Perimodiolar Electrode Arrays: How Successful Is It? , 2011, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[13]  Lawrence T. Cohen,et al.  Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 1. Growth of loudness and ECAP amplitude with current , 2009, Hearing Research.

[14]  Clemens Zierhofer,et al.  Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array , 2009, Biomedical engineering online.

[15]  P. van Dijk,et al.  Effect of peri-modiolar cochlear implant positioning on auditory nerve responses: A neural response telemetry study , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[16]  D. Altman,et al.  Measurement error. , 1996, BMJ.

[17]  J. Kronenberg,et al.  NRT-BASED VERSUS BEHAVIORAL-BASED MAP: A COMPARISON OF PARAMETERS AND SPEECH PERCEPTION IN YOUNG CHILDREN , 2004, Journal of basic and clinical physiology and pharmacology.

[18]  R. Trotić,et al.  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. , 2012, International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology.

[19]  Bernard Fraysse,et al.  The Size of the Cochlea and Predictions of Insertion Depth Angles for Cochlear Implant Electrodes , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[20]  Margaret W Skinner,et al.  Relation Between Neural Response Telemetry Thresholds, T- and C-Levels, and Loudness Judgments in 12 Adult Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant Recipients , 2007, Ear and hearing.

[21]  S. Purdy,et al.  Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users , 2007, International journal of audiology.

[22]  Paul J Abbas,et al.  The relation between electrophysiologic channel interaction and electrode pitch ranking in cochlear implant recipients. , 2006, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  Karen M Mispagel,et al.  Factors Affecting Open-Set Word Recognition in Adults With Cochlear Implants , 2013, Ear and hearing.

[24]  G. G. Stokes.  "J." , 1890, The New Yale Book of Quotations.

[25]  N. Todd.  Jacobson's nerve clues to the round window niche. , 2009 .

[26]  D. D. Greenwood.  A cochlear frequency-position function for several species--29 years later. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[27]  Andrew Botros,et al.  Neural Response Telemetry Reconsidered: II. The Influence of Neural Population on the ECAP Recovery Function and Refractoriness , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[28]  Lawrence T. Cohen,et al.  Practical model description of peripheral neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: 3. ECAP during bursts and loudness as function of burst duration , 2009, Hearing Research.

[29]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Intraoperative Neural Response Telemetry as a Predictor of Performance , 2010, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[30]  Irfan Durmo,et al.  Reliability of cone beam computed tomography in scalar localization of the electrode array: a radio histological study , 2014, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[31]  J. Schacht,et al.  Cisplatin and Aminoglycoside Antibiotics: Hearing Loss and Its Prevention , 2012, Anatomical record.

[32]  Patricia A. Leake,et al.  Frequency Map for the Human Cochlear Spiral Ganglion: Implications for Cochlear Implants , 2007, Journal for the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[33]  A. Hagr.  Intra-Operative Neural Response Telemetry and Acoustic Reflex Assessment using an Advance-In-Stylet Technique and Modiolus-Hugging: A prospective cohort study. , 2011, Sultan Qaboos University medical journal.

[34]  C. Batrel,et al.  Effect of Surgical Technique on Electrode Impedance after Cochlear Implantation , 2011, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[35]  L. Spivak,et al.  Electrical Compound Action Potentials Recorded With Automated Neural Response Telemetry: Threshold Changes as a Function of Time and Electrode Position , 2010, Ear and hearing.

[36]  Carolyn J Brown,et al.  Speech Perception Using Maps Based on Neural Response Telemetry Measures , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[37]  A. Beynon,et al.  Pre-, Per- and Postoperative Factors Affecting Performance of Postlinguistically Deaf Adults Using Cochlear Implants: A New Conceptual Model over Time , 2012, PloS one.

[38]  X. Xi,et al.  Electrode Interaction in Cochlear Implant Recipients: Comparison of Straight and Contour Electrode Arrays , 2009, ORL.

[39]  Carolyn J. Brown,et al.  Relationships Between Electrically Evoked Potentials and Loudness Growth in Bilateral Cochlear Implant Users , 2012, Ear and hearing.

[40]  G M Clark,et al.  Cochlear implantation: osteoneogenesis, electrode-tissue impedance, and residual hearing. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.