Evaluating the Noise in Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential Measurements in Cochlear Implants

Electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) are widely used to study the excitability of the auditory nerve and stimulation properties in cochlear implant (CI) users. However, ECAP detection can be difficult and very subjective at near-threshold stimulation levels or in spread of excitation measurements. In this study, we evaluated the statistical properties of the background noise (BN) and the postaverage residual noise (RN) in ECAP measurements in order to determine an objective detection criterion. For the estimation of the BN and the RN, a method currently used in auditory brainstem response measurements was applied. The potential benefit of using weighted (Bayesian) averages was also examined. All estimations were performed with a set of approximately 360 ECAP measurements recorded from five human CI users of the CII or HiRes90K device (advanced bionics). Results demonstrated that the BN was normally distributed and the RN decreased according to the square root of the number of averages. No additional benefit was observed by using weighted averaging. The noise was not significantly different either at different stimulation intensities or across recording electrodes along the cochlea. The analysis of the statistical properties of the noise indicated that a signal-to-noise ratio of 1.7 dB as a detection criterion corresponds to a false positive detection rate of 1% with the used measurement setup.

[1]  T. Brunelli,et al.  Comparison between NRT‐based MAPs and behaviourally measured MAPs at different stimulation rates – a multicentre investigation , 2003 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  An Improved Method of Reducing Stimulus Artifact in the Electrically Evoked Whole‐Nerve Potential , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[4]  Robert K. Shepherd,et al.  Effect of interphase gap and pulse duration on electrically evoked potentials is correlated with auditory nerve survival , 2006, Hearing Research.

[5]  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.

[6]  Matthijs Killian,et al.  AutoNRTTM: An automated system that measures ECAP thresholds with the Nucleus® FreedomTM cochlear implant via machine intelligence , 2007, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[7]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

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

[9]  Charles A. Miller,et al.  Electrically evoked compound action potentials of guinea pig and cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation , 1998, Hearing Research.

[10]  C Elberling,et al.  Estimation of auditory brainstem response, ABR, by means of Bayesian inference. , 1985, Scandinavian audiology.

[11]  M. Liberman,et al.  Auditory-nerve response from cats raised in a low-noise chamber. , 1978, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  P J Abbas,et al.  Electrically evoked whole-nerve action potentials: parametric data from the cat. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[14]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Response Properties of the Refractory Auditory Nerve Fiber , 2001, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[15]  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.

[16]  C Elberling,et al.  Use of quantitative measures of auditory brain-stem response peak amplitude and residual background noise in the decision to stop averaging. , 1996, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  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.

[18]  C Elberling,et al.  Threshold characteristics of the human auditory brain stem response. , 1987, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Jan Wouters,et al.  Alternative pulse shapes in electrical hearing , 2008, Hearing Research.

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

[21]  J. Fayad,et al.  Multichannel Cochlear Implants: Relation of Histopathology to Performance , 2006, The Laryngoscope.

[22]  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.

[23]  J. Wouters,et al.  Higher Sensitivity of Human Auditory Nerve Fibers to Positive Electrical Currents , 2008, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[24]  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.

[25]  C Elberling,et al.  Quality estimation of averaged auditory brainstem responses. , 1984, Scandinavian audiology.

[26]  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.

[27]  B. Lütkenhöner,et al.  Possibilities and limitations of weighted averaging , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[28]  Jaime A. Undurraga,et al.  Polarity effects on neural responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve at different cochlear sites , 2010, Hearing Research.

[29]  Charles A. Miller,et al.  Auditory nerve responses to monophasic and biphasic electric stimuli , 2001, Hearing Research.

[30]  Ikaro Silva.  Estimation of Postaverage SNR from Evoked Responses Under Nonstationary Noise , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[31]  Paul J. Abbas,et al.  Intracochlear and extracochlear ECAPs suggest antidromic action potentials , 2004, Hearing Research.

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

[33]  Kevin H. Franck,et al.  Electrode Interaction in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Subjects , 2005, Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology.

[34]  C Elberling,et al.  Evaluating residual background noise in human auditory brain-stem responses. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  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.