|
|
|
|
Search published articles |
|
|
Showing 2 results for Action Potential
Alireza Pourjavid, Mansoureh Adel Ghahraman, Hessam-El-Din Emamjome, Mahin Sedaie, Mohammad Farhadi, Ahmad Daneshi, Massoud Motesadi Zarandi, Farzad Mobedshahi, Parvaneh Abbasalipour Kabirrah, Volume 17, Issue 2 (2-2009)
Abstract
Background and Aim: In neural response telemetry (NRT), intracochlear electrodes stimulate the auditory nerve and record the neural responses. The electrical stimulation send to the auditory nerve by an electrode and the resulted response, called electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP), is recorded by an adjacent electrode. The most important clinical applications of this test are evaluation and monitoring the intra and postoperative responses of auditory nerve and help to primary setting of speech processor. The aim of this study was evaluating of the potential&aposs threshold changes in three monthes after receiving the devise in pediatric cochlear implant recipients. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal study evaluated the potential&aposs threshold in four given electrodes in four sessions after receiving the device by approximately one months intervals in children implanted in Amir Alam and Hazrat-e-Rasoul hospitals in 2007, July to December. Results: ECAP mean threshold level of each electrode did not significantly change in differnent sessions, while there was significant difference between apical and basal electrodes&apos responses in every session(p<0.001). Conclusion: The reliabiliy of the responses result in more certainty of clinician to fit the speech processor for a long time. Better responses in apical electrodes may lead to develope an effective coding strategy.
Minoo Karimi, Mohammad-Ebrahim Mahdavi-Zafarghandi, Homa Zarrinkoob, Mozhdeh Safavi, Seyyed Mehdi Tabatabaee, Volume 23, Issue 3 (8-2014)
Abstract
Background and Aim: It is not known how electrocochleography components of action potentials (AP) and summating potentials (SP) are changed in response to CE-chirp stimulus using extra-tympanic electrodes. This study was done for comparing summating potentials and action potentials specifications in response to CE-chirp and click stimuli. Methods: Electrocochleography components of action potentials and summating potentials were recorded in 16 normal hearing subjects (8 men and 8 women) aged 22-30 years (mean: 26.7 with SD 2.5 years) with audiometric (250-8000 Hz) hearing thresholds of 15 dB HL or better in response to click and CE-chirp stimulus at 90 dB nHL. Amplitude, duration, latency and area of summating potentials and action potentials and SP/AP amplitude and area ratios were compared. Results: Among the measured parameters, action potentials amplitude in response to CE-chirp stimulus (0.41 with SD 0.26 µV ) was significantly smaller than action potentials amplitude in response to click (0.61 with SD 0.29 µV ) stimulus (p<0.005). Relative frequency of detecting summating potentials in response to CE-chirp (68.7%) was lower than (100%) click (p<0.005). Conclusion: Recording electrocochleography component of summating potentials and action potentials with CE-chirp stimulus at high intensity level in normal hearing individuals shows no advantage over click stimulus. Small amplitude of summating potentials as a major problem of extra-tympanic electrocochleography cannot be solved using CE-chirp stimulus.
|
|
|
|
| This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly. |
|
|
|