Comparison of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds and loudness estimates for the stimuli used to program the Advanced Bionics cochlear implant.

BACKGROUND In the mid-1990s, Cochlear Corporation introduced a cochlear implant (CI) to the market that was equipped with hardware that made it possible to record electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from CI users of all ages. Over the course of the next decade, many studies were published that compared ECAP thresholds with levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI. In 2001 Advanced Bionics Corporation introduced the Clarion CII cochlear implant (the Clarion CII internal device is also known as the CII Bionic Ear). This cochlear implant was also equipped with a system that allowed measurement of the ECAP. While a great deal is known about how ECAP thresholds compare with the levels used to program the speech processor of the Nucleus CI, relatively few studies have reported comparisons between ECAP thresholds and the levels used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. PURPOSE To explore the relationship between ECAP thresholds and behavioral measures of perceptual dynamic range for the range of stimuli commonly used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI. RESEARCH DESIGN This prospective and experimental study uses correlational and descriptive statistics to define the relationship between ECAP thresholds and perceptual dynamic range measures. STUDY SAMPLE Twelve postlingually deafened adults participated in this study. All were experienced users of the Advanced Bionics CI system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ECAP thresholds were recorded using the commercially available SoundWave software. Perceptual measures of threshold (T-level), most comfortable level (M-level), and maximum comfortable level (C-level) were obtained using both "tone bursts" and "speech bursts." The relationship between these perceptual and electrophysiological variables was defined using paired t-tests as well as correlation and linear regression. RESULTS ECAP thresholds were significantly correlated with the perceptual dynamic range measures studied; however, correlations were not strong. Analysis of the individual data revealed considerable discrepancy between the contour of ECAP threshold versus electrode function and the behavioral loudness estimates used for programming. CONCLUSION ECAP thresholds recorded from Advanced Bionics cochlear implant users always indicated levels where the programming stimulus was audible for the listener. However, the correlation between ECAP thresholds and M-levels (the primary metric used to program the speech processor of the Advanced Bionics CI), while statistically significant, was quite modest. If programming levels are to be determined on the basis of ECAP thresholds, care should be taken to ensure that stimulation is not uncomfortably loud, particularly on the basal electrodes in the array.

[1]  Jeroen J. Briaire,et al.  Initial Evaluation of the Clarion CII Cochlear Implant: Speech Perception and Neural Response Imaging , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[2]  P J Abbas,et al.  The Relationship Between EAP and EABR Thresholds and Levels Used to Program the Nucleus 24 Speech Processor: Data from Adults , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[3]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Electrode Impedance, the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, and Behavioral Measures in Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant Users , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[4]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Relationships among objective measures and speech perception in adult users of the HiResolution Bionic Ear , 2008, Cochlear implants international.

[5]  Charles A. Miller,et al.  The use of long-duration current pulses to assess nerve survival , 1994, Hearing Research.

[6]  Kevin H Franck,et al.  Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Amplitude Growth Functions and HiResolution Programming Levels in Pediatric CII Implant Subjects , 2004, Ear and hearing.

[7]  Guido F. Smoorenburg,et al.  Speech Perception in Nucleus CI24M Cochlear Implant Users with Processor Settings Based on Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Thresholds , 2002, Audiology and Neurotology.

[8]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Comparison of EAP Thresholds with MAP Levels in the Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant: Data from Children , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[9]  S J Norton,et al.  Estimation of Psychophysical Levels Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Measured with the Neural Response Telemetry Capabilities of Cochlear Corporation’s CI24M Device , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[10]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: data from human cochlear implant users. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[12]  J K Shallop,et al.  Summary of results using the nucleus CI24M implant to record the electrically evoked compound action potential. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[13]  M Polak,et al.  ECAP, ESR and Subjective Levels for Two Different Nucleus 24 Electrode Arrays , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[14]  Bo Liu,et al.  Comparisons between Neural Response Imaging thresholds, electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII Bionic Ear users with HiResolution™ sound processing strategies , 2005, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[15]  P J Abbas,et al.  Preliminary experience with neural response telemetry in the nucleus CI24M cochlear implant. , 1998, The American journal of otology.

[16]  H. Cullington.  Preliminary Neural Response Telemetry Results , 2000, British journal of audiology.