40 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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 FLEX(SOFT) 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

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

    Get PDF
    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 FLEX(SOFT) 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

    Tinnitus before and 6 Months after Cochlear Implantation

    Full text link
    In this prospective multicenter study, tinnitus loudness and tinnitus-related distress were investigated in 174 cochlear implant (CI) candidates who underwent CI surgery at a Swiss cochlear implant center. All subjects participated in two session, one preoperatively and one 6 months after device activation. In both sessions, tinnitus loudness was assessed using a visual analogue scale and tinnitus distress using a standardized tinnitus questionnaire. The data were compared with unaided pre- and postoperative pure tone thresholds, and postoperative speech reception scores. 71.8% of the subjects reported tinnitus preoperatively. Six months after CI surgery 20.0% of these reported abolition of their tinnitus, 51.2% a subjective improvement, 21.6% no change and 7.2% a deterioration. Of the 49 (28.2%) subjects with no tinnitus preoperatively, 5 developed tinnitus 6 months after CI. These 5 had poorer speech understanding after CI surgery with their device than the group who remained tinnitus free. We found no correlation between tinnitus improvement, age, duration of tinnitus, or change in unaided hearing thresholds between the two sessions

    Search for Pair Production of Second-Generation Scalar Leptoquarks in pp Collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

    No full text
    A search for pair production of second-generation scalar leptoquarks in the final state with two muons and two jets is performed using proton-proton collision data at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV collected by the CMS detector at the LHC. The data sample used corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 34 inverse picobarns. The number of observed events is in good agreement with the predictions from the standard model processes. An upper limit is set on the second-generation leptoquark cross section times beta^2 as a function of the leptoquark mass, and leptoquarks with masses below 394 GeV are excluded at a 95% confidence level for beta = 1, where beta is the leptoquark branching fraction into a muon and a quark. These limits are the most stringent to date
    corecore