Wolfe Jace, Gifford Rene, Schafer Erin
Hearts for Hearing Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK.
Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2018 Apr;29(4):337-347. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.16176.
The electrically evoked stapedial reflex threshold (ESRT) has been shown to be a good predictor of upper stimulation level for cochlear implant recipients. Previous research has shown that the ESRT may be recorded at lower stimulation levels and with a higher incidence of success with the use of higher frequency probe tones (e.g., 678 and 1000 Hz) relative to the use of the conventional 226-Hz probe tone. Research has also shown that the acoustic reflex may be recorded at lower stimulus levels with the use of wideband reflectance when compared to the acoustic reflex threshold recorded with a conventional acoustic immittance measurement.
The objective of this study was to compare the ESRT recorded with acoustic immittance and wideband reflectance measurements.
A repeated measures design was used to evaluate potential differences in ESRTs with stimulation at an apical, middle, and basal electrode contact with the use of two different techniques, acoustic immittance measurement and wideband reflectance.
Twelve users of Cochlear Nucleus cochlear implants were included in the study.
Participants' ESRTs were evaluated in response to simulation at three different electrode contact sites (i.e., an apical, middle, and basal electrode contact) with the use of two different middle ear measurement techniques, acoustic immittance with the use of a 226-Hz probe tone and wideband reflectance with the use of a chirp stimulus.
The mean ESRT recorded with wideband reflectance measurement was significantly lower when compared to the ESRT recorded with acoustic immittance. For one participant, the ESRT was not recorded with acoustic immittance before reaching the participant's loudness discomfort threshold, but it was successfully recorded with the use of wideband reflectance.
The ESRT may potentially be recorded at lower presentation levels with the use of wideband reflectance measures relative to the use of acoustic immittance with a 226-Hz probe tone. This may allow for the ESRT to be obtained at levels that are more comfortable for the cochlear implant recipient, which may also allow for a higher incidence in the successful recording of the ESRT.
电诱发镫骨肌反射阈值(ESRT)已被证明是人工耳蜗植入者较高刺激水平的良好预测指标。先前的研究表明,相对于使用传统的226赫兹探测音,使用较高频率的探测音(如678和1000赫兹)时,ESRT可能在较低刺激水平下记录,且成功率更高。研究还表明,与使用传统声导抗测量记录的声反射阈值相比,使用宽带反射率时,声反射可能在较低刺激水平下记录。
本研究的目的是比较用声导抗和宽带反射率测量记录的ESRT。
采用重复测量设计,以评估在使用两种不同技术(声导抗测量和宽带反射率)刺激人工耳蜗顶端、中部和基底电极触点时ESRT的潜在差异。
本研究纳入了12名科利耳公司人工耳蜗使用者。
使用两种不同的中耳测量技术,即使用226赫兹探测音的声导抗和使用线性调频脉冲刺激的宽带反射率,在三个不同电极触点部位(即顶端、中部和基底电极触点)对参与者的ESRT进行评估,以响应模拟刺激。
与用声导抗记录的ESRT相比,用宽带反射率测量记录的平均ESRT显著更低。对于一名参与者,在用声导抗记录时,在达到其响度不适阈值之前未记录到ESRT,但使用宽带反射率成功记录到了ESRT。
相对于使用226赫兹探测音的声导抗测量,使用宽带反射率测量时,ESRT可能在更低的呈现水平下记录。这可能使ESRT能在人工耳蜗植入者更舒适的水平下获得,这也可能使ESRT成功记录的发生率更高。