A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential

Jacquelyn L. Baudhuin, Michelle L. Hughes, Jenny L. Goehring

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Cochlear implant manufacturers utilize different artifact-reduction methods to measure electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in the clinical software. Two commercially available artifact-reduction techniques include forward masking (FwdMsk) and alternating polarity (AltPol). AltPol assumes that responses to the opposing polarities are equal, which is likely problematic. On the other hand, FwdMsk can yield inaccurate waveforms if the masker does not effectively render all neurons into a refractory state. The goal of this study was to compare ECAP thresholds, amplitudes, and slopes of the amplitude growth functions (AGFs) using FwdMsk and AltPol to determine whether the two methods yield similar results. Design: ECAP AGFs were obtained from three electrode regions (basal, middle, and apical) across 24 ears in 20 Cochlear Ltd. recipients using both FwdMsk and AltPol methods. AltPol waveforms could not be resolved for recipients of devices with the older-generation chip (CI24R(CS); N = 6). Results: Results comparing FwdMsk and AltPol in the CI24RE- and CI512-generation devices showed significant differences in threshold, AGF slope, and amplitude between methods. FwdMsk resulted in lower visual-detection thresholds (p < 0.001), shallower slopes (p = 0.004), and larger amplitudes (p = 0.03) compared with AltPol. Conclusions: Results from this study are consistent with recent findings showing differences in ECAP amplitude and latency between polarities for human CI recipients. When averaged, these differences likely result in a reduced ECAP response with AltPol. The next step will be to separate the effects of artifact-reduction method and stimulus polarity to determine the relative effects of each.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e247-e255
JournalEar and hearing
Volume37
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016

Fingerprint

Artifacts
Action Potentials
Growth
Equipment and Supplies
Cochlear Implants
Cochlea
Ear
Electrodes
Software
Neurons

Keywords

  • Alternating polarity
  • Artifact reduction
  • Cochlear implant
  • ECAP
  • Electrically evoked compound action potential
  • Forward masking

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential. / Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L.; Hughes, Michelle L.; Goehring, Jenny L.

In: Ear and hearing, Vol. 37, No. 4, 01.07.2016, p. e247-e255.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L. ; Hughes, Michelle L. ; Goehring, Jenny L. / A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential. In: Ear and hearing. 2016 ; Vol. 37, No. 4. pp. e247-e255.
@article{524da1fd25d8413189796f9ef4d68e3c,
title = "A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential",
abstract = "Objective: Cochlear implant manufacturers utilize different artifact-reduction methods to measure electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in the clinical software. Two commercially available artifact-reduction techniques include forward masking (FwdMsk) and alternating polarity (AltPol). AltPol assumes that responses to the opposing polarities are equal, which is likely problematic. On the other hand, FwdMsk can yield inaccurate waveforms if the masker does not effectively render all neurons into a refractory state. The goal of this study was to compare ECAP thresholds, amplitudes, and slopes of the amplitude growth functions (AGFs) using FwdMsk and AltPol to determine whether the two methods yield similar results. Design: ECAP AGFs were obtained from three electrode regions (basal, middle, and apical) across 24 ears in 20 Cochlear Ltd. recipients using both FwdMsk and AltPol methods. AltPol waveforms could not be resolved for recipients of devices with the older-generation chip (CI24R(CS); N = 6). Results: Results comparing FwdMsk and AltPol in the CI24RE- and CI512-generation devices showed significant differences in threshold, AGF slope, and amplitude between methods. FwdMsk resulted in lower visual-detection thresholds (p < 0.001), shallower slopes (p = 0.004), and larger amplitudes (p = 0.03) compared with AltPol. Conclusions: Results from this study are consistent with recent findings showing differences in ECAP amplitude and latency between polarities for human CI recipients. When averaged, these differences likely result in a reduced ECAP response with AltPol. The next step will be to separate the effects of artifact-reduction method and stimulus polarity to determine the relative effects of each.",
keywords = "Alternating polarity, Artifact reduction, Cochlear implant, ECAP, Electrically evoked compound action potential, Forward masking",
author = "Baudhuin, {Jacquelyn L.} and Hughes, {Michelle L.} and Goehring, {Jenny L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AUD.0000000000000288",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "e247--e255",
journal = "Ear and Hearing",
issn = "0196-0202",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Comparison of Alternating Polarity and Forward Masking Artifact-Reduction Methods to Resolve the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential

AU - Baudhuin, Jacquelyn L.

AU - Hughes, Michelle L.

AU - Goehring, Jenny L.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Objective: Cochlear implant manufacturers utilize different artifact-reduction methods to measure electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in the clinical software. Two commercially available artifact-reduction techniques include forward masking (FwdMsk) and alternating polarity (AltPol). AltPol assumes that responses to the opposing polarities are equal, which is likely problematic. On the other hand, FwdMsk can yield inaccurate waveforms if the masker does not effectively render all neurons into a refractory state. The goal of this study was to compare ECAP thresholds, amplitudes, and slopes of the amplitude growth functions (AGFs) using FwdMsk and AltPol to determine whether the two methods yield similar results. Design: ECAP AGFs were obtained from three electrode regions (basal, middle, and apical) across 24 ears in 20 Cochlear Ltd. recipients using both FwdMsk and AltPol methods. AltPol waveforms could not be resolved for recipients of devices with the older-generation chip (CI24R(CS); N = 6). Results: Results comparing FwdMsk and AltPol in the CI24RE- and CI512-generation devices showed significant differences in threshold, AGF slope, and amplitude between methods. FwdMsk resulted in lower visual-detection thresholds (p < 0.001), shallower slopes (p = 0.004), and larger amplitudes (p = 0.03) compared with AltPol. Conclusions: Results from this study are consistent with recent findings showing differences in ECAP amplitude and latency between polarities for human CI recipients. When averaged, these differences likely result in a reduced ECAP response with AltPol. The next step will be to separate the effects of artifact-reduction method and stimulus polarity to determine the relative effects of each.

AB - Objective: Cochlear implant manufacturers utilize different artifact-reduction methods to measure electrically evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in the clinical software. Two commercially available artifact-reduction techniques include forward masking (FwdMsk) and alternating polarity (AltPol). AltPol assumes that responses to the opposing polarities are equal, which is likely problematic. On the other hand, FwdMsk can yield inaccurate waveforms if the masker does not effectively render all neurons into a refractory state. The goal of this study was to compare ECAP thresholds, amplitudes, and slopes of the amplitude growth functions (AGFs) using FwdMsk and AltPol to determine whether the two methods yield similar results. Design: ECAP AGFs were obtained from three electrode regions (basal, middle, and apical) across 24 ears in 20 Cochlear Ltd. recipients using both FwdMsk and AltPol methods. AltPol waveforms could not be resolved for recipients of devices with the older-generation chip (CI24R(CS); N = 6). Results: Results comparing FwdMsk and AltPol in the CI24RE- and CI512-generation devices showed significant differences in threshold, AGF slope, and amplitude between methods. FwdMsk resulted in lower visual-detection thresholds (p < 0.001), shallower slopes (p = 0.004), and larger amplitudes (p = 0.03) compared with AltPol. Conclusions: Results from this study are consistent with recent findings showing differences in ECAP amplitude and latency between polarities for human CI recipients. When averaged, these differences likely result in a reduced ECAP response with AltPol. The next step will be to separate the effects of artifact-reduction method and stimulus polarity to determine the relative effects of each.

KW - Alternating polarity

KW - Artifact reduction

KW - Cochlear implant

KW - ECAP

KW - Electrically evoked compound action potential

KW - Forward masking

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959297069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959297069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000288

DO - 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000288

M3 - Article

C2 - 26928001

AN - SCOPUS:84959297069

VL - 37

SP - e247-e255

JO - Ear and Hearing

JF - Ear and Hearing

SN - 0196-0202

IS - 4

ER -