Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients
- PMID: 17609612
- DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc16e
Relation between neural response telemetry thresholds, T- and C-levels, and loudness judgments in 12 adult nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients
Abstract
Objective: The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the contour of visual (vNRT) or predicted (tNRT) neural response telemetry (NRT) thresholds across electrodes could predict the contour of behaviorally programmed T-levels (minimum stimulation) and/or C-levels (maximum stimulation) across electrodes for well-fit MAPs. The secondary purpose was to determine the relation between NRT thresholds and loudness judgments obtained at the subject's MAP rate (250, 900, 1200, or 1800 pulses per second [pps]) and the NRT stimulus rate (80 pps).
Design: Twelve adult Nucleus 24 cochlear implant recipients participated in the study. The T- and C-levels from a preferred MAP, which had been worn for a minimum of 3 mo, were used in this study. Electrically evoked compound action potentials were measured on 11 active electrodes with NRT software (v3.0). Ascending loudness judgments from first hearing to maximum acceptable loudness were completed on these electrodes with the subject's preferred MAP rate stimulus, using the R126 (v.2.0) software and with an 80 pps rate stimulus, using the NRT software (v3.0). All measures were repeated approximately 1 mo later to determine their reliability.
Results: The reliability of the behavioral and objective measures was very high from the first to the second half of the study. The mean tNRT thresholds had a lower reliability (r = 0.73) than vNRT thresholds (r = 0.91). The loudness judgment dynamic range was notably different between rates. The NRT rate (80 pps) stimulus resulted in the narrowest dynamic range followed by increasingly wider dynamic range as the MAP rate increased. The NRT thresholds had a stronger correlation with loudness judgments made with the NRT rate stimulus than with the MAP rate stimulus. The group mean NRT thresholds were significantly correlated with C-levels (vNRT r = 0.69) (tNRT r = 0.66) but not T-levels. The relation between NRT thresholds and T- and C-levels varied for different MAP rates, with the NRT thresholds being closest to the C-levels for the 250 pps MAP rate. Each subject's vNRT thresholds and MAP levels were examined by fitting a third-order polynomial to the data. This analysis revealed significant variability demonstrating that no one fit predicts T- and C-levels well for all subjects.
Conclusions: The results of this study provide important insight into the relation between NRT thresholds and loudness judgments for different stimulation rates and T- and C-levels at various MAP rates. The loudness judgment dynamic range and MAP dynamic range (T- and C-levels) varied notably for different stimulation rates. As a result, the relation of NRT thresholds to these measures also varied with stimulation rate. Overall, the mean vNRT thresholds fell higher in the loudness judgment dynamic range than the tNRT thresholds. Mean NRT thresholds fell between the judgments of medium soft and maximum acceptable loudness for all stimulation rates. Mean vNRT thresholds fell above C-levels, whereas almost half of tNRT thresholds fell just below C-levels. However, the relation between NRT thresholds and C-levels varied substantially for different MAP stimulation levels. In addition, there is substantial individual variability in the relation between NRT thresholds and MAP levels that is not reflected in the group data. The prediction of the contour of T- and C-levels from the contour of NRT thresholds across electrodes would not be appropriate for half of the subjects. Therefore, great care should be taken when applying a fitting rule that incorporates NRT thresholds without considering these individual differences. For adults who can provide appropriate loudness judgments and threshold responses it appears to be most efficient to primarily use behavioral measures to create MAPs.
Similar articles
-
Relation of electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds to behavioral T- and C-levels in children with cochlear implants.Ear Hear. 2009 Feb;30(1):115-27. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181906c0f. Ear Hear. 2009. PMID: 19125034 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical evaluation of higher stimulation rates in the nucleus research platform 8 system.Ear Hear. 2007 Jun;28(3):381-93. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31804793ac. Ear Hear. 2007. PMID: 17485987
-
[Comparison of neural response telemetry thresholds with behavioral T/C levels].Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 2002 Dec;37(6):435-9. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi. 2002. PMID: 12966804 Chinese.
-
A different approach to using neural response telemetry for automated cochlear implant processor programming.Ear Hear. 2005 Aug;26(4 Suppl):38S-44S. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200508001-00006. Ear Hear. 2005. PMID: 16082266 Review.
-
Optimizing cochlear implant speech performance.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2003 Sep;191:4-13. doi: 10.1177/00034894031120s903. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 2003. PMID: 14533838 Review.
Cited by
-
Determining electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds: a comparison of computer versus human analysis methods.Ear Hear. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):96-109. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182650abd. Ear Hear. 2013. PMID: 22885406 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of stimulus and recording parameters on spatial spread of excitation and masking patterns obtained with the electrically evoked compound action potential in cochlear implants.Ear Hear. 2010 Oct;31(5):679-92. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e1d19e. Ear Hear. 2010. PMID: 20505513 Free PMC article.
-
The Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential: From Laboratory to Clinic.Front Neurosci. 2017 Jun 23;11:339. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2017.00339. eCollection 2017. Front Neurosci. 2017. PMID: 28690494 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Using Interleaved Stimulation to Measure the Size and Selectivity of the Sustained Phase-Locked Neural Response to Cochlear Implant Stimulation.J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2021 Apr;22(2):141-159. doi: 10.1007/s10162-020-00783-y. Epub 2021 Jan 25. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2021. PMID: 33492562 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative study of two different perimodiolar and a straight cochlear implant electrode array: surgical and audiological outcomes.Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020 Jan;277(1):69-76. doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05680-6. Epub 2019 Oct 21. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020. PMID: 31637478
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials