Application of Intraoperative Recordings of Electrically Evoked ABRs in a Paediatric Cochlear Implant Programme

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? (1): On electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses

“…Wave IIe and wave IVe were present in some recordings, while wave I could not be recorded as it was masked by the electrical stimula- tion artifact. The morphology of the EABR recordings was consistent with other reported EABR findings Brown et al, 1990Brown et al, , 1994Mason et al, 1993;Gallégo et al, 1996;Firszt et al, 2002). Fig.…”

Brain Stem Responses Evoked by Stimulation With an Auditory Brain Stem Implant in Children With Cochlear Nerve Aplasia or Hypoplasia

“…EABR thresholds for CI subjects have been reported to be higher (Mason et al 1993;Brown et al 1994) and lower (Gordon et al 2004) intraoperatively than after CI activation. The differences found in these studies may be attributed to variation in the level of noise in the recordings, as the former studies were performed on sedated or anesthetized children and the latter study tested awake children with associated higher levels of physiological noise in the evoked potential recordings.…”

“…The higher rates used clinically for stimulating (250 Hz and above) produce lower behavioral thresholds as a result of temporal integration. Unfortunately, even a modest increase in stimulation rate (50 Hz and above) will degrade the EABR in both ABI and CI subjects because of adaptation or refractoriness along the auditory pathway (Starr & Brackmann 1979;Mason et al 1993;Waring 1996). In practice, therefore, it is not possible to use the clinical stimulation rate for the EABR measures.…”

Population-Based Prediction of Fitting Levels for Individual Cochlear Implant Recipients

“…In an attempt to produce a reasonably automated prediction of levels and facilitate the fitting process, many studies have investigated whether objective measures such as evoked stapedius reflex threshold (eSRT), auditory brain stem response (eABR) or compound action potential (eCAP) could predict the T-and M-levels or level profiles [Shallop et al, 1991;Mason et al, 1993;Brown et al, 1994Brown et al, , 1999Hodges et al, 1999;Brown et al, 2000;Allum et al, 2002;Seyle and Brown, 2002;Smoorenburg et al, 2002;Brown, 2003;Gordon et al, 2004;Cafarelli et al, 2005;Caner et al, 2007;Miller et al, 2008;Alvarez et al, 2010;Botros and Psarros, 2010;Jeon et al, 2010]. The general conclusion of these studies is that objective measures can be indicative of levels, but unfortunately, significant correlations between eSRT, eABR and eCAP measurements and T-and M-levels were shown to be of moderate strength and not appropriate for predictions in individual users.…”