Peng Tommy, Garcia Charlotte, Haneman Mica, Shader Maureen J, Carlyon Robert P, McKay Colette M
The Bionics Institute, 384-388 Albert St, East Melbourne, VIC, 3002, Australia.
Department of Medical Bionics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia.
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2025 Feb;26(1):77-91. doi: 10.1007/s10162-024-00972-z. Epub 2025 Jan 8.
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.
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.
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 = 0.111, p < 0.001). While a larger variation in neural measures estimated from psychophysical thresholds was associated with lower phoneme speech scores (R = 0.499, p < 0.01), no significant association was found between variations in PECAP's neural health estimates and phoneme speech scores (R = 0.082, p = 0.366).
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.
沿人工耳蜗电极阵列的神经存活差异会导致异位聆听,从而使接受者的言语理解结果更差。因此,开发并比较临床可行的测试以识别这些患者特异性的耳蜗内神经差异非常重要。
本研究招募了19名有经验的人工耳蜗接受者(9名男性和10名女性)。我们使用两种方法估计一组有经验的成年植入接受者沿电极阵列的神经健康状况:双极与单极模式下心理物理检测阈值的差异以及全景电诱发复合动作电位方法(PECAP)。我们假设:在单个电极上使用这两种方法估计的神经健康状况在参与者水平和组水平上都将具有相关性;并且沿电极阵列神经健康状况变化较大的参与者言语结果较差。
在个体水平上,15名参与者中有5名在电极间两种神经测量方法显著相关(p < 0.05)。在组水平上,我们观察到电极间存在微弱但显著的相关性(R = 0.111,p < 0.001)。虽然从心理物理阈值估计的神经测量变化较大与较低的音素言语得分相关(R = 0.499,p < 0.01),但在PECAP神经健康估计的变化与音素言语得分之间未发现显著关联(R = 0.082,p = 0.366)。
我们的证据表明,这两种方法可能都量化了一个共同的潜在神经基础,假设为沿人工耳蜗阵列的神经健康状况。这两种测量方法之间的差异可能归因于用于引发反应的刺激率或响度的差异和/或比听神经更靠中枢产生的因素的影响。