Comparing Patient-Specific Variations in Intra-Cochlear Neural Health Estimated Using Psychophysical Thresholds and Panoramic Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials (PECAPs).

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Tommy Peng, Charlotte Garcia, Mica Haneman, Maureen J Shader, Robert P Carlyon, Colette M McKay
{"title":"Comparing Patient-Specific Variations in Intra-Cochlear Neural Health Estimated Using Psychophysical Thresholds and Panoramic Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potentials (PECAPs).","authors":"Tommy Peng, Charlotte Garcia, Mica Haneman, Maureen J Shader, Robert P Carlyon, Colette M McKay","doi":"10.1007/s10162-024-00972-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Variations in neural survival along the cochlear implant electrode array leads to off-place listening, resulting in poorer speech understanding outcomes for recipients. Therefore, it is important to develop and compare clinically viable tests to identify these patient-specific intra-cochlear neural differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Nineteen experienced cochlear implant recipients (9 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. We estimated the neural health along the electrode array for a group of experienced adult implant recipients using two methods: the difference between psychophysical detection thresholds in bipolar vs. monopolar mode and the panoramic electrically evoked compound action potential method (PECAP). We hypothesised that: neural health estimated using both methods at single electrodes will be correlated at the participant level and the group level; and participants with larger variations in neural health along the electrode array will have poorer speech outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the individual level, the two neural measures correlated significantly across electrodes (p < 0.05) for 5 out of 15 participants. At the group level, we observed a weak but significant across-electrode correlation (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.111, p < 0.001). While a larger variation in neural measures estimated from psychophysical thresholds was associated with lower phoneme speech scores (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.499, p < 0.01), no significant association was found between variations in PECAP's neural health estimates and phoneme speech scores (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.082, p = 0.366).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our evidence suggests that both methods likely quantify a shared underlying neural basis, hypothesised to be the neural health along the cochlear implant array. The differences between the two measures may be attributed to differences in stimulus rate or loudness used to elicit responses and/or the influence of factors arising more centrally than the auditory nerve.</p>","PeriodicalId":56283,"journal":{"name":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-024-00972-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Variations in neural survival along the cochlear implant electrode array leads to off-place listening, resulting in poorer speech understanding outcomes for recipients. Therefore, it is important to develop and compare clinically viable tests to identify these patient-specific intra-cochlear neural differences.

Methods: Nineteen experienced cochlear implant recipients (9 males and 10 females) were recruited for this study. We estimated the neural health along the electrode array for a group of experienced adult implant recipients using two methods: the difference between psychophysical detection thresholds in bipolar vs. monopolar mode and the panoramic electrically evoked compound action potential method (PECAP). We hypothesised that: neural health estimated using both methods at single electrodes will be correlated at the participant level and the group level; and participants with larger variations in neural health along the electrode array will have poorer speech outcomes.

Results: At the individual level, the two neural measures correlated significantly across electrodes (p < 0.05) for 5 out of 15 participants. At the group level, we observed a weak but significant across-electrode correlation (R2 = 0.111, p < 0.001). While a larger variation in neural measures estimated from psychophysical thresholds was associated with lower phoneme speech scores (R2 = 0.499, p < 0.01), no significant association was found between variations in PECAP's neural health estimates and phoneme speech scores (R2 = 0.082, p = 0.366).

Conclusion: Our evidence suggests that both methods likely quantify a shared underlying neural basis, hypothesised to be the neural health along the cochlear implant array. The differences between the two measures may be attributed to differences in stimulus rate or loudness used to elicit responses and/or the influence of factors arising more centrally than the auditory nerve.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: JARO is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research findings from disciplines related to otolaryngology and communications sciences, including hearing, balance, speech and voice. JARO welcomes submissions describing experimental research that investigates the mechanisms underlying problems of basic and/or clinical significance. Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the kinds of papers carried by JARO by looking at past issues. Clinical case studies and pharmaceutical screens are not likely to be considered unless they reveal underlying mechanisms. Methods papers are not encouraged unless they include significant new findings as well. Reviews will be published at the discretion of the editorial board; consult the editor-in-chief before submitting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信