Characterization of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) in cats and humans

Honert, Chris van den; Stypulkowski, Paul H.

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(86)90033-x

“…The amplitude values suggest that direct electrical stimulation tends to produce a Wave V that is larger in amplitude than that produced with acoustic stimuli, a finding noted in other reports of electrically evoked potentials (Abbas, 1993;van den Honert & Stypulkowski, 1986) and attributed to increased synchrony of auditory nerve fiber responses for electrical stimulation.…”

Section: Effects Of Electrode Site and Stimulus Level On The Eabr Easupporting

confidence: 56%

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures

Firszt

¹

,

Chambers

²

,

Kraus

³

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design:The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures.Results: For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions: Electrophysiologic responses of Waves

show abstract

“…Some studies have reported significant latency differences across electrodes for subjects where basal electrodes have longer latencies than apical electrodes (Abbas & Brown, 1991;Shallop et al, 1990). Other studies have reported no significant differences (Abbas & Brown, 1988;van den Honert & Stypulkowski, 1986). Wave V latency increased as stimulus current level decreased.…”

Section: Effects Of Electrode Site and Stimulus Level On The Eabr Eamentioning

confidence: 96%

“…For the EABR, it was expected that 1) a series of positive peaks would occur between approximately 1 to 4 msec; 2) the latency of Wave V would occur at approximately 3.5 to 4.0 msec at higher stimulus current levels and increase with decreases in stimulus level; and 3) Wave I would not be visible because it would have a latency of approximately 0.75 msec (as seen in recordings of the electrically evoked action potential, Abbas et al, 1998;Franck & Norton, 2001), and would be embedded in stimulus artifact (Abbas & Brown, 1988Picton, Hillyard, Krausz, & Galambos, 1974;van den Honert & Stypulkowski, 1986). For the EAMLR, a negative trough, Na, at approximately 15 to 18 msec, would be followed by a positive peak, Pa, at approximately 25 to 30 msec from the onset of the stimulus at suprathreshold levels (Jyung et al, 1989;Kileny & Kemink, 1987;Özdamar & Kraus, 1983;Picton et al, 1974).…”

Section: Identification and Measures Of Waveformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users I: Effects of Stimulus Current Level and Electrode Site on the Electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 Response

Firszt

¹

,

Chambers

²

,

Kraus

³

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design:The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures.Results: For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions: Electrophysiologic responses of Waves

show abstract

“…The rationale was whether or not nerve survival in man can be assessed with (nonwere found to be "distributed in an orderly pattern invasive) EABR measurements. In animals, several along the superior surface of the temporal lobe" , authors found a relation between EABR measureThey reported that two patients who were using a ments and spiral ganglion cell survival, while others multichannel Cl, had similar source activity as subdid not (4,5). There is conflicting evidence regarding jects with normal hearing during acoustic stimulation, the value of EABR measurements to assess eighth…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relation between Electric Auditory Brain Stem and Cognitive Responses and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users

Groenen¹,

Makhdoum²,

Brink³

et al. 1996

Acta Oto-Laryngologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groenen PÀP, Makhdouni M, van den Brink JL, Stoll man MHP, Snik AFM, vtin den Broek P, The relation between electric auditory brain stem and cognitive responses and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1996; 116: 785-790. Electrically evoked brainstem responses (EABR) and event-related cortical potentials were recorded in seven postlingually deaf adults who were experienced users of a Nuclcus multichannel cochlear implant. The patients were divided into two subgroups: good performers and moderate performers, Poor EABR were found in two of the moderate performers. The latencies and amplitudes of the cortical N1-P2 complex in the good performers were within the same range as those of subjects with normal hearing, but were deviant in the group of moderate performers. This may indicate disturbed cochleotopical organization of the auditory cortex in the latter group. P300 measurements in the good performers showed normal latencies, whereas in the moderate performers they were prolonged. The results suggest that the outcomes of electrophysiological measurements to assess the integrity of a patient's auditory neural system on a brainstem and. a cortical level, are related to the patient's performance with the cochlear implant.

show abstract

Characterization of the electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) in cats and humans

Cited by 139 publications

References 31 publications

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users I: Effects of Stimulus Current Level and Electrode Site on the Electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 Response

The Relation between Electric Auditory Brain Stem and Cognitive Responses and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About