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

Abstract

The presence of an intraoperative EABR was a good indicator for the location of electrodes on the ABI array that provided auditory sensations. The morphology of the EABR was often variable within and between test sessions. The postoperative EABR thresholds did correlate with the behavioral T and C levels and could be used to assist with initial device fitting.

Electrically Evoked Auditory Event-Related Responses in Patients with Auditory Brainstem Implants: Morphological Characteristics, Test–Retest Reliability, Effects of Stimulation Level, and Association with Auditory Detection

“…As previously mentioned, morphological characteristics of the eABR change over time in patients with ABIs (O'Driscoll et al, 2011b). Although underlying mechanisms for these changes are not known, it is unlikely that they are caused by developmental changes in the auditory system because the measurements were repeated with a short time interval (i.e., approximately eight weeks) between test sessions.…”

“…However, results of recent studies reveal a poor association between the presence/absence of the eABR and auditory stimulation in ABI recipients (Nevison et al, 2002; Goffi-Gomez et al, 2012; O'Driscoll et al, 2011a, 2011b). In addition, the morphology of the eABR can vary between and within test sessions (O'Driscoll et al, 2011b), and reveal conflicting evidence regarding the ability of the eABR to distinguish between auditory and non-auditory stimulation (Herrmann et al, 2014; O'Driscoll et al, 2011b). Finally, the association between behavioral T levels and eABR thresholds can vary across test sessions (O'Driscoll et al, 2011b).…”

“…These neural structures can be activated by electrical stimulation of the ABI due to current spread and/or less than optimal electrode placement. As a result, patients with ABIs often report non-auditory sensations when the device is activated (Colletti et al, 2005; Frohne et al, 2000; Goffi-Gomez et al, 2012; Herrmann et al, 2014; Marangos et al, 2000; Nevison et al, 2002; O'Driscoll et al, 2011b; Otto et al, 2002). To avoid unwanted side effects of stimulation, any electrodes that evoke non-auditory sensations should either be deactivated, or have limited maximum current level during the programming process.…”

“…The electrically-evoked auditory brainstem response (eABR) has been used to guide electrode placement and to assist in the programming process in patients with ABIs (Colletti et al, 2001, 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2005; Herrmann et al, 2014; Goffi-Gomez et al, 2012; O'Driscoll et al, 2011a, 2011b). However, results of recent studies reveal a poor association between the presence/absence of the eABR and auditory stimulation in ABI recipients (Nevison et al, 2002; Goffi-Gomez et al, 2012; O'Driscoll et al, 2011a, 2011b).…”

“…In addition, the morphology of the eABR can vary between and within test sessions (O'Driscoll et al, 2011b), and reveal conflicting evidence regarding the ability of the eABR to distinguish between auditory and non-auditory stimulation (Herrmann et al, 2014; O'Driscoll et al, 2011b). Finally, the association between behavioral T levels and eABR thresholds can vary across test sessions (O'Driscoll et al, 2011b). Overall, these results bring into question the value of the eABR as a tool for assisting the programming process in ABI recipients.…”