Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array

BackgroundThe standard electrode array for the MED-EL MAESTRO cochlear implant system is 31 mm in length which allows an insertion angle of approximately 720°. When fully inserted, this long electrode array is capable of stimulating the most apical region of the cochlea. No investigation has explored Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) recordings in this region with a large number of subjects using a commercially available cochlear implant system. The aim of this study is to determine if certain properties of ECAP recordings vary, depending on the stimulation site in the cochlea.MethodsRecordings of auditory nerve responses were conducted in 67 subjects to demonstrate the feasibility of ECAP recordings using the Auditory Nerve Response Telemetry (ART™) feature of the MED-EL MAESTRO system software. These recordings were then analyzed based on the site of cochlear stimulation defined as basal, middle and apical to determine if the amplitude, threshold and slope of the amplitude growth function and the refractory time differs depending on the region of stimulation.ResultsFindings show significant differences in the ECAP recordings depending on the stimulation site. Comparing the apical with the basal region, on average higher amplitudes, lower thresholds and steeper slopes of the amplitude growth function have been observed. The refractory time shows an overall dependence on cochlear region; however post-hoc tests showed no significant effect between individual regions.ConclusionsObtaining ECAP recordings is also possible in the most apical region of the cochlea. However, differences can be observed depending on the region of the cochlea stimulated. Specifically, significant higher ECAP amplitude, lower thresholds and steeper amplitude growth function slopes have been observed in the apical region. These differences could be explained by the location of the stimulating electrode with respect to the neural tissue in the cochlea, a higher density, or an increased neural survival rate of neural tissue in the apex.Trial registrationThe Clinical Investigation has the Competent Authority registration number DE/CA126/AP4/3332/18/05.

[1]  Kevin H Franck,et al.  A Model of a Nucleus 24 Cochlear Implant Fitting Protocol Based on the Electrically Evoked Whole Nerve Action Potential , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[2]  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.

[3]  Rudolf Glueckert,et al.  The Human Spiral Ganglion: New Insights into Ultrastructure, Survival Rate and Implications for Cochlear Implants , 2005, Audiology and Neurotology.

[4]  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.

[5]  Peter Nopp,et al.  Deep electrode insertion in cochlear implants: apical morphology, electrodes and speech perception results. , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[7]  Christoph Arnoldner,et al.  Effect of deep insertion of the cochlear implant electrode array on pitch estimation and speech perception , 2006, Acta oto-laryngologica.

[8]  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.

[9]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Channel Interaction in Cochlear Implant Users Evaluated Using the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential , 2004, Audiology and Neurotology.

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

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

[12]  Kimmo Vehkalahti,et al.  Applied Statistics Using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R, 2nd Edition by Joaquim P. Marques de Sá , 2007 .

[13]  K. Pfaller,et al.  High resolution scanning electron microscopy of the human organ of Corti. A study using freshly fixed surgical specimens , 2005, Hearing Research.

[14]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

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

[16]  J. Bortz.  Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler , 2010 .

[17]  Joaquim Marques de Sá,et al.  Applied Statistics Using SPSS, STATISTICA, MATLAB and R , 2003 .

[18]  E. Hochmair,et al.  EAP Recordings in Ineraid Patients—Correlations with Psychophysical Measures and Possible Implications for Patient Fitting , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[19]  J. Flores-Otero,et al.  Firing Patterns of Type II Spiral Ganglion Neurons In Vitro , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[20]  R. Cowan,et al.  Spatial spread of neural excitation in cochlear implant recipients: comparison of improved ECAP method and psychophysical forward masking , 2003, Hearing Research.

[21]  Z. Mo,et al.  Firing features and potassium channel content of murine spiral ganglion neurons vary with cochlear location , 2002, The Journal of comparative neurology.

[22]  L. Collet,et al.  Measuring the Refractoriness of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve , 2006, Audiology and Neurotology.

[23]  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.

[24]  I. Hochmair-Desoyer,et al.  The HSM sentence test as a tool for evaluating the speech understanding in noise of cochlear implant users. , 1997, The American journal of otology.

[25]  J. Mauchly.  Significance Test for Sphericity of a Normal $n$-Variate Distribution , 1940 .