Suppr超能文献

SpeedCAP:一种利用人工耳蜗植入患者的电诱发复合动作电位来估计神经激活模式的有效方法。

SpeedCAP: An Efficient Method for Estimating Neural Activation Patterns Using Electrically Evoked Compound Action-Potentials in Cochlear Implant Users.

机构信息

Cambridge Hearing Group, Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Cambridge Hearing Group, Cambridge Universities Hospitals Foundation Trust, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Ear Hear. 2023;44(3):627-640. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000001305. Epub 2022 Dec 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Electrically evoked compound action-potentials (ECAPs) can be recorded using the electrodes in a cochlear implant (CI) and represent the synchronous responses of the electrically stimulated auditory nerve. ECAPs can be obtained using a forward-masking method that measures the neural response to a probe and masker electrode separately and in combination. The panoramic ECAP (PECAP) analyses measured ECAPs obtained using multiple combinations of masker and probe electrodes and uses a nonlinear optimization algorithm to estimate current spread from each electrode and neural health along the cochlea. However, the measurement of ECAPs from multiple combinations of electrodes is too time consuming for use in clinics. Here, we propose and evaluate SpeedCAP, a speedy method for obtaining the PECAP measurements that minimizes recording time by exploiting redundancies between multiple ECAP measures.

DESIGN

In the first study, 11 users of Cochlear Ltd. CIs took part. ECAPs were recorded using the forward-masking artifact-cancelation technique at the most comfortable loudness level (MCL) for every combination of masker and probe electrodes for all active electrodes in the users' MAPs, as per the standard PECAP recording paradigm. The same current levels and recording parameters were then used to collect ECAPs in the same users with the SpeedCAP method. The ECAP amplitudes were then compared between the two conditions, as were the corresponding estimates of neural health and current spread calculated using the PECAP method previously described by Garcia et al. The second study measured SpeedCAP intraoperatively in 8 CI patients and with all maskers and probes presented at the same current level to assess feasibility. ECAPs for the subset of conditions where the masker and probe were presented on the same electrode were compared with those obtained using the slower approach leveraged by the standard clinical software.

RESULTS

Data collection time was reduced from ≈45 to ≈8 minutes. There were no significant differences between normalized root mean squared error (RMSE) repeatability metrics for post-operative PECAP and SpeedCAP data, nor for the RMSEs calculated between PECAP and SpeedCAP data. The comparison achieved 80% power to detect effect sizes down to 8.2% RMSE. When between-participant differences were removed, both the neural-health (r = 0.73) and current-spread (r = 0.65) estimates were significantly correlated ( p < 0.0001, df = 218) between SpeedCAP and PECAP conditions across all electrodes, and showed RMSE errors of 12.7 ± 4.7% and 16.8 ± 8.8%, respectively (with the ± margins representing 95% confidence intervals). Valid ECAPs were obtained in all patients in the second study, demonstrating intraoperative feasibility of SpeedCAP. No significant differences in RMSEs were detectable between post- and intra-operative ECAP measurements, with the comparison achieving 80% power to detect effect sizes down to 13.3% RMSE.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved efficiency of SpeedCAP provides time savings facilitating multi-electrode ECAP recordings in routine clinical practice. SpeedCAP data collection is sufficiently quick to record intraoperatively, and adds no more than 8.2% error to the ECAP amplitudes. Such measurements could thereafter be submitted to models such as PECAP to provide patient-specific patterns of neural activation to inform programming of clinical MAPs and identify causes of poor performance at the electrode-nerve interface of CI users. The speed and accuracy of these measurements also opens up a wide range of additional research questions to be addressed.

摘要

目的

可以使用人工耳蜗中的电极记录电诱发复合动作电位(ECAP),其代表了电刺激听神经的同步反应。可以使用正向掩蔽方法来获得 ECAP,该方法分别测量探针和掩蔽电极以及组合探针和掩蔽电极的神经反应。全景 ECAP(PECAP)分析测量了使用掩蔽和探针电极的多种组合获得的 ECAP,并使用非线性优化算法来估计每个电极的电流扩散和耳蜗的神经健康状况。但是,对于在临床上使用,测量多个电极的 ECAP 太耗时了。在这里,我们提出并评估了 SpeedCAP,这是一种快速获取 PECAP 测量值的方法,通过利用多个 ECAP 测量之间的冗余性来最小化记录时间。

设计

在第一项研究中,有 11 名 Cochlear Ltd. 人工耳蜗使用者参加。根据标准 PECAP 记录范式,以每位用户的 MAP 中所有活动电极的最舒适响度级(MCL),使用正向掩蔽伪迹消除技术,对每个掩蔽和探针电极组合记录 ECAP。然后,使用相同的电流水平和记录参数,使用 SpeedCAP 方法在同一用户中收集 ECAP。然后比较两种条件下的 ECAP 幅度,以及使用 Garcia 等人先前描述的 PECAP 方法计算的相应神经健康和电流扩散估计值。第二项研究在 8 名人工耳蜗患者中进行了术中测量,并以相同的电流水平呈现所有掩蔽和探针,以评估可行性。将条件子集的掩蔽器和探头都放在同一电极上的 ECAP 与使用标准临床软件获得的较慢方法进行了比较。

结果

数据采集时间从约 45 分钟缩短到约 8 分钟。术后 PECAP 和 SpeedCAP 数据的归一化均方根误差(RMSE)重复性指标以及 PECAP 和 SpeedCAP 数据之间的 RMSE 之间没有显着差异。当去除参与者之间的差异时,神经健康(r = 0.73)和电流扩散(r = 0.65)的估计值在所有电极上均在 SpeedCAP 和 PECAP 条件之间显著相关(p <0.0001,df = 218),并分别显示出 12.7±4.7%和 16.8±8.8%的 RMSE 误差(±代表 95%置信区间)。第二项研究中的所有患者均获得了有效的 ECAP,证明了 SpeedCAP 的术中可行性。在术后和术中 ECAP 测量之间无法检测到 RMSE 的显着差异,该比较达到了 80%的功效,可以检测到低至 13.3% RMSE 的效应大小。

结论

SpeedCAP 的效率提高了在常规临床实践中进行多电极 ECAP 记录的效率。SpeedCAP 数据采集速度足够快,可以在术中进行记录,并且对 ECAP 幅度的影响不超过 8.2%。此后,可以将此类测量结果提交给 PECAP 等模型,以提供患者特定的神经激活模式,为临床 MAP 编程提供信息,并识别人工耳蜗使用者电极-神经界面性能不佳的原因。这些测量的速度和准确性也为解决广泛的其他研究问题开辟了道路。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ae4c/10097494/e7f80c6eae7c/aud-44-627-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验