Hüseyin DENİZ, Elif Tuğba SARAÇ, Şemsettin OKUYUCU

Comparison eCAP and behaviour thresholds in post lingual medel cochlear implant users

Aim: Our purpose with this study is to determine the most effective and suitable cochlear implant programming method for CI users’implants to experience quality hearing and for the users to achieve efficiency from their implants.Materials and Methods:Twenty-five cochlear implant users with post lingual progressive hearing loss were included in the study.Twelve electrodes’ ART (auditory nerve response telemetry) thresholds were determined and were statistically analyzed to beevaluated in the study. For 12 electrodes whose AutoART threshold was determined, the MCLs (most comfortable loudness) weredetermined behaviorally.Results: No correlations were found between the 12 electrodes and AutoART. It was seen that there was a correlation between thepure tone average obtained from 500-1000-2000 and 4000Hz and the speech reception threshold.Conclusion: The use of two test batteries together to determine thresholds can be helpful in the programming of the speechprocessor. The more audiologists work with cochlear implant patients and do programming, the more they accumulate data andgain occupational experience. With the occupational experience acquired in this manner, more accurate programming can be done.

PDF

___

1. Greisiger R, Shallop JK, Hol PK, et al. Cochlear implantees: Analysis of behavioral and objective measures for a clinical population of various age groups. Cochlear Implants Int 2015;4:1-19.
2. Kosaner J, Spitzer P, Bayguzina S, et al. Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MEDEL cochlear implant users. Cochlear Implants Int. 2018;19:153-61.
3. Raghunandhan S, Ravikumar A, Kameswaran M, et al. Electrophysiological Correlates of Behavioral Comfort Levels in Cochlear Implantees: A Prospective Study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;67:210-22.
4. De Seta D, Torres R, Russo FY, et al. Damage to inner ear structure during cochlear implantation: Correlation between insertion force and radio-histological findings in temporal bone specimens. Hear Res 2017;344:90-7.
5. Vaerenberg B, Smits C. Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. ScientificWorldJournal 2014;2014:501738.
6. Hughes ML, Vander Werff KR, et al. A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential, and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2001;22:471-86.
7. Schmidt M, Griesser A. Long-term stability of fitting parameters with the COMBI 40. Am J Otol 1997;18:109-10.
8. Shapiro WH, Bradham TS. Cochlear implant programming. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;45:111- 27.
9. Vargas JL, Sainz M, Roldan C, et al. Long-term evolution of the electrical stimulation levels for cochlear implant patients. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012;5:194-200.
10. Mens LH. Advances in cochlear implant telemetry: evoked neural responses, electrical field imaging, and technical integrity. Trends Amplif 2007;11:143-59.
11. Gordon KA, Abbasalipour P, Papsin BC. Balancing current levels in children with bilateral cochlear implants using electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Hear Res 2016;335:193-206.
12. Telmesani LM, Said NM. Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: Changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016;82:28-33.
13. Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK, et al. Electrically evoked single-fiber action potentials from cat: responses to monopolar, monophasic stimulation. Hear Res 1999;130:197-218.
14. Miller CA, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, et al. The clinical application of potentials evoked from the peripheral auditory system. Hear Res 2008;242:184-97.
15. Henkin Y, Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, et al. Changes over time in electrical stimulation levels and electrode impedance values in children using the Nucleus 24M cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2003;67:873-80.
16. Dawson PW, Skok M, Clark GM. The effect of loudness imbalance between electrodes in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1997;18:156-65.
17. Wesarg T, Battmer RD, Garrido LC, 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. Int J Audiol 2010;49:775-87.
18. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, et al. Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 2013;34:342-60.
19. Walravens E, Mawman D, O'Driscoll M. Changes in psychophysical parameters during the first month of programming the nucleus contour and contour advance cochlear implants. Cochlear Implants Int 2006;7:15-32.
20. de Vos JJ, Biesheuvel JD, Briaire JJ, et al. Use of Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials for Cochlear Implant Fitting: A Systematic Review. Ear Hear 2018;39:401-11.
21. Cafarelli Dees D, Dillier N, Lai WK, et al. Normative findings of electrically evoked compound action potential measurements using the neural response telemetry of the Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant system. Audiology & Neuro-Otology 2005;10:105-16.
22. Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Abbas PJ, et al.Comparison of EAP thresholds with MAP levels in the nucleus 24 cochlear implant: data from children. Ear Hear 2000;21:164-74.
23. Spivak LG, Chute PM. The relationship between electrical acoustic reflex thresholds and behavioral comfort levels in children and adult cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 1994;15:184-92.
24. Hodges AV, Butts S, Dolan-Ash S, et al. Using electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds to fit the CLARION cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:64-8.
25. Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV. Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 2004;25:447-63.
26. Derinsu U, Yuksel M, Gecici CR, et al. Effects of residual speech and auditory deprivation on speech perception of adult cochlear implant recipients. Auris Nasus Larynx 2019;46:58-63.
27. Reis M, Boisvert I, Looi V, et al. Speech Recognition Outcomes After Cochlear Reimplantation Surgery. Trends Hear 2017;21:2331216517706398.