Measuring the Refractoriness of the Electrically Stimulated Auditory Nerve

Intracochlear recordings in cochlear implant recipients provide access to the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP). ECAP thresholds are potential predictors of speech processor map’s threshold and comfortable loudness levels. The auditory nerve’s refractory properties can influence t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Audiology & neurotology 2006-01, Vol.11 (6), p.389-402
Hauptverfasser: Morsnowski, Andre, Charasse, Basile, Collet, Lionel, Killian, Matthijs, Müller-Deile, Joachim
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Intracochlear recordings in cochlear implant recipients provide access to the electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP). ECAP thresholds are potential predictors of speech processor map’s threshold and comfortable loudness levels. The auditory nerve’s refractory properties can influence these levels due to high-rate stimulation with interpulse intervals within the relative refractory period. Recovery functions were investigated at 84 stimulation sites in 14 Nucleus CI24 recipients using neural response telemetry and a modified forward masking technique. This technique introduces a reference masker-probe interval (MPI). In our study, an appropriate value between 300 and 375 µs was determined for this reference MPI, and the use of a reference MPI of 300 µs is suggested for recovery and amplitude growth functions. A median absolute refractory period of about 390 µs and a median time constant of about 425 µs were obtained by fitting an exponential model to the data. Hence, the auditory nerve is usually in relative refractory state when standard neural response telemetry forward masking is selected because of its default MPI of 500 µs. This can bias the measurement of ECAP thresholds. Additionally, the shape of standard forward masking recovery functions was explained by the influence of latency shift of the neural response.
ISSN:1420-3030
1421-9700
DOI:10.1159/000095966