Comparison of automated and traditional ECAP recording approaches in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: The traditional method of recording electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs), as implemented in the MAESTRO clinical software (standard ART), requires manual adjustments during threshold determination through a specialist. The "FineGrain" research tool (FineGrain RT) uses a continuous stimulation paradigm combined with automatic ECAP threshold determination. The aim of this study was to compare the FineGrain RT with standard ART. DESIGN: ECAPs were recorded with standard ART and the FineGrain RT in paediatric cochlear implant recipients. Different stimulation rates were used for FineGrain ECAP recordings (40, 60, and 76 Hz). STUDY SAMPLE: Thirteen children (6 - 19 years) participated in this study - nine were bilaterally and four unilaterally implanted, resulting in a total of twenty-two implanted ears. RESULTS: ECAP threshold determination success rates were similar between the two approaches (92% and 89%) and ECAP thresholds correlated well (r: 0.94, p < 2.2e-16) with average ART thresholds being lower than FineGrain RT thresholds. FineGrain stimulation with different stimulation rates did not have a significant effect on ECAP thresholds but ECAP thresholds at medial and apical contacts were lower compared to basal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: TheFineGrain research approach is a reliable replacement for standard ART in clinical practice.

Electrically evoked compound action potentials are different depending on the site of cochlear stimulation.

One of the many parameters that can affect cochlear implant (CI) users' performance is the site of presentation of electrical stimulation, from the CI, to the auditory nerve. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) measurements are commonly used to verify nerve function by stimulating one electrode contact in the cochlea and recording the resulting action potentials on the other contacts of the electrode array. The present study aimed to determine if the ECAP amplitude differs between the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea, if double peak potentials were more likely in the apex than the basal region of the cochlea, and if there were differences in the ECAP threshold and recovery function across the cochlea. ECAP measurements were performed in the apical, middle, and basal region of the cochlea at fixed sites of stimulation with varying recording electrodes. One hundred and forty one adult subjects with severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss fitted with a Standard or FLEXSOFT electrode were included in this study. ECAP responses were captured using MAESTRO System Software (MED-EL). The ECAP amplitude, threshold, and slope were determined using amplitude growth sequences. The 50% recovery rate was assessed using independent single sequences that have two stimulation pulses (a masker and a probe pulse) separated by a variable inter-pulse interval. For all recordings, ECAP peaks were annotated semi-automatically. ECAP amplitudes were greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. ECAP slopes were steeper in the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea and ECAP thresholds were lower in the middle region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. The incidence of double peaks was greater upon stimulation of the apical region compared to the basal region of the cochlea. This data indicates that the site and intensity of cochlear stimulation affect ECAP properties.