Comparison of the Objective Measures and Behavioral Responses in Cochlear Implant Users Implanted with CI422: A Preliminary Study

Year 2019, , 192 - 199, 29.08.2019

Merve Ozbal Batuk , Betul Cicek Cinar

https://doi.org/10.21020/husbfd.598132

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of the present study is to investigate the relationship between
the eSRT and eCAP thresholds with the behavioral comfortable levels in CI users
implanted with CI422.

Materials and Methods: There were 10 CI user
included in the study with mean age at evaluation 20.47. five electrodes were selected from different regions
of cochlea for comparison. For these five electrodes, behavioral C levels were
determined with Custom Soundâ 5.2 Fitting Software and eCAP and eSRT thresholds
were obtained with Custom Soundâ EP 5.2.

Results: Correlations analysis was
done between behavioral C levels and eSRT or eCAP separately. For E22,
behavioral C level was positively correlated with eSRT (r=.772; p= .009;
p<.01). However, there was no correlational relation with eCAP. For E1,
behavioral C level was positively correlated with both eSRT (r=0.785; p=.007;
p< .01) and eCAP (r=0.812; p=.004; p<.01). there was not any correlational relation between eSRT and eCAP except
E1. Behavioral C levels was compared with ECAP and ESRT
with related-samples Wilcoxon test. Behavioral C levels for all electrodes are
statistically significantly different from eSRT levels.

Conclusion: This study is the first study that investigates the
objective measures and behavioral method in adults with CI422 implants. Both
eCAP and eSRT can be used in CI fitting but eSRT levels are significantly
higher than the behavioral C levels. In order to provide adequate stimulation
the combination of the objective measures and behavioral methods was considered
to be the best option.

Keywords

Cochlear implants, hearing loss, cochlear implantation, electric stimulation, auditory threshold

References

• Andrade, K.C.L., Leal, M.C, Muniz, L.F., Menezes, P.L., Albuquerque, K.M.G. & Carnaúba A.T.L.. The importance of electrically evoked stapedial reflex in cochlear implant. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology. 2014; 80:68-77.
• Battmer, R., Laszig, R. & Lehnhardt, E. (1990) Electrically elicited stapedius reflex in cochlear implant patients. Ear and Hearing. 1990 (11),370-374.
• Batuk, M.O., Cinar, B.C., Zeren, E., Bayulgen, Ö., Dusunmez, İ. & Sennaroglu, G. (2019). Evaluation of ECAP thresholds, T and C levels in children with sequential bilateral cochlear implants, Annals of Medical Research, 2019, 26(7): 1372-1377.
• Caner, G., Olgun, L., Gultekin, G. & Balaban, M. (2007). Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold. Otology and Neurotology. 2007 (28), 637-640.
• Cinar, B.C., Atas, A., Sennaroglu, G. & Sennaroglu, L. (2011). Evaluation of objective test techniques in cochlear implant users with inner ear malformations. Otology and Neurotology, 2011(32),1065-1074.
• Gordon, K.A., Papsin, B.C. & Harrison, R.V. (2004). Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear and Hearing. 2004 (25), 447-463.
• Kosaner, J., Spitzer, P., Bayguzina, S., Gultekin, M. & Behar, L.A. (2018) Comparing eSRT and eCAP measurements in pediatric MED-EL cochlear implant users, Cochlear Implants International, 19 (3), 153-161, DOI: 10.1080/14670100.2017.1416759.
• Overstreet, E.H. (2004). New objective measurement techniques and their relationship to HiResk program settings. International Congress Series, 1273 (2004), 35-39.
• Park, L.R., Teagle, H.F., Brown, K.D., Gognon, E.B., Woodard, J.S. & Buchman, C.A. (2017). Audiological outcomes and map characteristics in children with perimodiolar and slim straight array cochlear implants in opposite ears. Otology Neurotology, 2017;38 (9): 320-326.
• Smoorenburg, G. F., Willeboer, C. & van Dijk, J. E. (2002). Speech perception in nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiology Neurootology, 7, 335–347.
• Vaerenberg, B., Smits, C., De Ceulaer, G., Zir, E., Harman, S. &Jaspers, N. et al. (2014). Cochlear implant programming: a global survey on the state of the art. ScientificWorld Journal, 2014, 1-12, ID: 501738.
• Walkowiak, A., Lorens, A., Polak, M., Kostek, B., Skarzynski, H. & Szkielkowska, A. et al. (2011). Evoked stapedius reflex and compound action potential thresholds versus most comfortable loudness level: assessment of their relation for charge-based fitting strategies in implant users. Journal of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, 2011(73), 189-195.
• Wolfe, J., Gilbert, M., Schafer, E., Litvak, L.M., Spahr, A.J.& Saoji, A. et al. (2016). Optimizations for the electrically-evoked stapedial reflex threshold measurement in cochlear ımplant recipients, Ear and Hearing, 38(2): 255-261.