Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation

One of the many parameters that can affect cochlear implant (CI) users’ performance is the site of presentation of electrical stimulation, from the CI, to the auditory nerve. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements are commonly used to verify nerve function by stimulating one electrode contact in the cochlea and recording the resulting action potentials on the other contacts of the electrode array. The present study aimed to determine if the ECAP amplitude differs between the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea, if double peak potentials were more likely in the apex than the basal region of the cochlea, and if there were differences in the ECAP threshold and recovery function across the cochlea. ECAP measurements were performed in the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea at fixed sites of stimulation with varying recording electrodes. One hundred and forty one adult subjects with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss fitted with a Standard or FLEXSOFT electrode were included in this study. ECAP responses were captured using MAESTRO System Software (MED-EL). The ECAP amplitude, threshold, and slope were determined using amplitude growth sequences. The 50% recovery rate was assessed using independent single sequences that have two stimulation pulses (a masker and a probe pulse) separated by a variable inter-pulse interval. For all recordings, ECAP peaks were annotated semi-automatically. ECAP amplitudes were greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. ECAP slopes were steeper in the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea and ECAP thresholds were lower in the middle region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. The incidence of double peaks was greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. This data indicates that the site and intensity of cochlear stimulation affect ECAP properties.

[1]  D. Mürbe,et al.  Estimation of insertion depth angle based on cochlea diameter and linear insertion depth: a prediction tool for the CI422 , 2015, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[2]  Omid Majdani,et al.  Cochlear length determination using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in a clinical setting , 2014, Hearing Research.

[3]  Thomas Zahnert,et al.  Insertion Depth Angles of Cochlear Implant Arrays With Varying Length: A Temporal Bone Study , 2014, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.

[4]  Helge Rask-Andersen,et al.  How to predict cochlear length before cochlear implantation surgery , 2013, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[5]  Colette M. McKay,et al.  Can ECAP Measures Be Used for Totally Objective Programming of Cochlear Implants? , 2013, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[6]  J. Kronenberg,et al.  Multicentre investigation on electrically evoked compound action potential and stapedius reflex: how do these objective measures relate to implant programming parameters? , 2012, Cochlear implants international.

[7]  J. Frijns,et al.  Stimulus level effects on neural excitation and eCAP amplitude , 2011, Hearing Research.

[8]  Jae-Ryong Kim,et al.  Recovery function of electrically evoked compound action potential in implanted children with auditory neuropathy: preliminary results , 2011, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[9]  N. Cambron Programming Cochlear Implants , 2011 .

[10]  Uwe Baumann,et al.  Recording and analysis of electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) with MED-EL cochlear implants and different artifact reduction strategies in Matlab , 2010, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[11]  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.

[12]  Uwe Baumann,et al.  Recording of electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses after electrical stimulation with biphasic, triphasic and precision triphasic pulses , 2010, Hearing Research.

[13]  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.

[14]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system , 2008, Hearing Research.

[15]  M. Dorman,et al.  Central auditory development: evidence from CAEP measurements in children fit with cochlear implants. , 2007, Journal of communication disorders.

[16]  B. Pfingst,et al.  Psychophysical Metrics and Speech Recognition in Cochlear Implant Users , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[17]  N. Dillier,et al.  Normative Findings of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Measurements Using the Neural Response Telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M Cochlear Implant System , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[18]  Thomas Lenarz,et al.  Evaluation of the neural response telemetry (NRT) capabilities of the nucleus research platform 8: initial results from the NRT trial. , 2004, International journal of audiology.

[19]  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.

[20]  Bryan E. Pfingst,et al.  Across-Site Threshold Variation in Cochlear Implants: Relation to Speech Recognition , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

[21]  Johan H M Frijns,et al.  A new method for dealing with the stimulus artefact in electrically evoked compound action potential measurements , 2004, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[22]  A. Hodges,et al.  Further prospective findings with compound action potentials from Nucleus 24 cochlear implants , 2004, Hearing Research.

[23]  Elaine Saunders,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation: comparison of compound action potential and forward-masking data in cochlear implant recipients , 2004, International journal of audiology.

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

[25]  Norbert Dillier,et al.  A Simple Two-Component Model of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential in the Human Cochlea , 2000, Audiology and Neurotology.

[26]  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.

[27]  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.

[28]  R. Pujol,et al.  Hair cell innervation in the fetal human cochlea. , 1988, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[29]  D. Ryugo,et al.  Hair cell innervation by spiral ganglion neurons in the mouse , 1987, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[30]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. II. Single fiber recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

[31]  P. Stypulkowski,et al.  Physiological properties of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. I. Compound action potential recordings , 1984, Hearing Research.

[32]  N. Kiang,et al.  Hair-cell innervation by spiral ganglion cells in adult cats. , 1982, Science.