Fiona Stanley Fremantle Hospitals Group, Perth, Washington, Australia.
Medical School, Division of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Washington, Australia.
Audiol Neurootol. 2023;28(4):294-307. doi: 10.1159/000529797. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
This study was designed to investigate the use of electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (eCAEPs) as a tool for cochlear implant (CI) verification, the relationships between the site and intensity of stimulation and the detection rates and morphologies of eCAEPs as well as investigate whether correlations exist between the morphologies of eCAEPs and speech perception in quiet and in noise, duration of hearing loss, age at implantation, whether the hearing loss bilateral or single-sided and the electrode current level required to elicit MCL stimulation.
32 adult unilateral CI users with postlingual hearing loss were enrolled. The stimuli were 1 kHz biphasic alternating pulses and were presented at either the behaviorally measured MCL or 50% of this value (MCL0.5) via the CI fitting software. Pulses were directed to apical, medial, or basal electrodes. CAEPs were recorded from a scalp electrode placed at the vertex, low forehead, and contralateral mastoid and were evaluated by two electrophysiologists.
Overall, eCAEPs could be detected in 31/32 users when stimulating at MCL, and in 29/32 users when stimulating at MCL0.5. The detection rates were 31, 31, and 28/32 for apical, medial, and basal stimulation at MCL, and 29, 29, and 26/32 at MCL0.5. Significant differences in eCAEP amplitudes and latencies were observed across electrodes and stimulation levels. No significant correlations were found between eCAEP latencies and amplitudes and user age, duration of deafness prior to CI surgery, or with bilateral versus single-sided hearing loss, nor with the charge level required to elicit MCL, or with speech perception scores in quiet. Peak latencies correlated with speech perception scores in some configurations of speech-in-noise.
eCAEPs can readily be elicited in the majority of adult CI users and show normal waveform characteristics at stimulation levels corresponding to MCL, as well as at basal, medial, and apical electrode stimulation sites. Neither the latencies nor amplitudes of eCAEPs are confounded by variables of age, duration of deafness prior to CI surgery, or the laterality of hearing loss. eCAEPs are a useful, objective method evaluate sound perception in CI users.
本研究旨在探讨电诱发皮质听觉诱发电位(eCAEPs)作为一种耳蜗植入(CI)验证工具的应用,刺激部位和强度与 eCAEPs 的检出率和形态之间的关系,以及研究 eCAEPs 的形态与安静和噪声环境下言语感知、听力损失持续时间、植入年龄、听力损失是双侧还是单侧以及诱发 MCL 刺激所需的电极电流水平之间是否存在相关性。
纳入 32 名成年单侧后天性听力损失 CI 用户。刺激为 1 kHz 双相交替脉冲,通过 CI 适配软件分别在行为测量的 MCL 或其 50%(MCL0.5)处施加于刺激。刺激指向顶极、中极或基极电极。CAEPs 由置于顶点、低额和对侧乳突的头皮电极记录,由两位电生理学家进行评估。
总体而言,当以 MCL 刺激时,32 名用户中有 31 名可检测到 eCAEPs,当以 MCL0.5 刺激时,32 名用户中有 29 名可检测到 eCAEPs。在 MCL 刺激时,顶极、中极和基极的检出率分别为 31、31 和 28/32,在 MCL0.5 刺激时,检出率分别为 29、29 和 26/32。电极和刺激水平之间的 eCAEP 幅度和潜伏期存在显著差异。eCAEP 潜伏期和幅度与用户年龄、CI 术前失聪持续时间、双侧或单侧听力损失、诱发 MCL 所需电荷量或安静环境下言语感知得分均无显著相关性。在一些言语噪声配置中,峰值潜伏期与言语感知得分相关。
eCAEPs 可在大多数成年 CI 用户中轻易引出,在与 MCL 对应的刺激水平以及在基极、中极和顶极电极刺激部位显示出正常的波形特征。eCAEPs 的潜伏期和幅度不受年龄、CI 术前失聪持续时间或听力损失的侧别等变量的影响。eCAEPs 是一种有用的、客观的方法,可用于评估 CI 用户的声音感知。