ABSTRACT
Objective This study assessed the relationship between electrophysiological measures of the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) and speech perception scores measured in quiet and in noise in post-lingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users. It tested the hypothesis that how well the auditory nerve (AN) responds to electrical stimulation is important for speech perception with a CI in challenging listening conditions.
Design Study participants included 24 post-lingually deafened adult CI users. All participants used Cochlear® Nucleus™ CIs in their test ears. In each participant, eCAPs were measured at multiple electrode locations in response to single-pulse, paired-pulse, and pulse-train stimuli. Independent variables included six parameters calculated from the eCAP recordings: the electrode-neuron interface (ENI) index, the neural adaptation (NA) ratio, NA speed, the adaptation recovery (AR) ratio, AR speed, and the amplitude modulation (AM) ratio. The ENI index quantified the effectiveness of the CI electrodes in stimulating the targeted AN fibers. The NA ratio indicated the amount of NA at the AN caused by a train of constant-amplitude pulses. NA speed was defined as the speed/rate of NA. The AR ratio estimated the amount of recovery from NA at a fixed time point after the cessation of pulse-train stimulation. AR speed referred to the speed of recovery from NA caused by previous pulse-train stimulation. The AM ratio provided a measure of AN sensitivity to AM cues. Participants’ speech perception scores were measured using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word lists and AzBio sentences presented in quiet, as well as in noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of +10 and +5 dB. Predictive models were created for each speech measure to identify eCAP parameters with meaningful predictive power.
Results The ENI index and AR speed had significant bivariate relationships with speech perception scores measured in this study, while the NA ratio, NA speed, the AR ratio, and the AM ratio did not. The ENI index was identified as the only eCAP parameter that had unique predictive power for each of the speech test results. The amount of variance in speech perception scores (both CNC words and AzBio sentences) explained by the eCAP parameters increased with increased difficulty in the listening condition. Over half of the variance in speech perception scores measured in +5 dB SNR noise (both CNC words and AzBio sentences) was explained by a model with only three eCAP parameters: the ENI index, NA speed, and AR speed.
Conclusions The ENI index is the most informative predictor for speech perception performance in CI users. The response characteristics of the AN to electrical stimulation is more important for speech perception with a CI in noise than it is in quiet.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the R01 grant from NIDCD/NIGMS (1R01DC016038).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Biomedical Institutional Review Board of The Ohio State University gave ethical approval for this work (2017H0131).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest: None.
Source of Funding: This work was supported by the R01 grant from NIDCD/NIGMS (1R01DC016038).
Data Availability
Please contact the corresponding author to discuss access to the data presented in this study.
