Mapping of Paediatric Cochlear Implant Using Neural Response Threshold (NRT) and Behavioural Observation Audiometry (BOA)

  • Ashvanee kumar Chaudhary
  • Vishwambhar Singh
  • Rajesh Kumar
  • Ashutosh Alakh Avinashi
  • Sunil Kumar
Original Article


To measure the correlation between neural response threshold (NRT) and most comfortable level for behavioural response (MCLB) whichever is better for rehabilitation purpose and to calculate the impedance of the electrode in cochlear implant recipient. Mapping may be done by various methods here we did by NRT and behavioral observation audiometry (BOA). NRT is technique by which we measure the response from the auditory nerve using the hi-resolution bionic ear system. Neural response measurement depends on the-neural tissue, stimulus used and recording technique. BOA is used for observing motor response on presenting sound to the implanted child. Most comfortable level for behavioural response (MCLB) is calculated for behavioural response. It measures the useful information about low frequency hearing, it provides more information about the hearing of neurologically immature babies giving indication of uncomfortable loudness levels. The NRT and MCLB is calculated for 2nd, 6th, and 11th electrode for all patients in our study. Auditory response threshold is better for rehabilitations then behavioural observation audiometry for Cochlear implant patients. Mean value and standard deviation of neural response threshold (NRT) (qu) are 10.23, 3.67; 11.27, 4.39; 10.71, 3.88 at 2nd, 6th, and 11th electrode respectively. Mean value and standard deviation of Most comfortable level for behavioral response (qu) are 20.49, 7.08; 21.26, 7.31; 21.01, 6.03 at 2nd, 6th and 11th electrode respectively. NRT is better for post-operative rehabilitations and MCL and threshold vary with different electrode and in different patients.


Cochlear Implant Neural response threshold Behavioural observation audiometry Most comfortable level for behavioural response Impedance 


  1. 1.
    Singh V (2015) Newborn hearing screening: present scenario. Indian J Community Med 40(1):62–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soli SD, Zheng Y (2010) Long-term reliability of pediatric cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 31(6):899–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mittal R, Panwar SS, Nair S, Sinha VR, Ramesh AV, Nilkanthan A, Raj P (2015) Mapping of pediatric cochlear implant recipients using electrical auditory brainstem responses as a tool. Int Otol 21:14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Driver S, Jiang D (2017) Paediatric cochlear implantation factors that affect outcomes. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 21:104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim L-S, Jeong S-W, Lee Y-M, Kim J-S (2009) Cochlear implantation in children. Auris Nasus Larynx 37(1):6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Telmesani LM, Said NM (2016) Electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) in cochlear implant children: changes in auditory nerve response in first year of cochlear implant use. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 82:28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koch DB, Overstreet EH (2003) Neural response imaging: measuring auditory-nerve responses from the cochlea with the hi-resolution bionic ear system. Advanced Bionics Corporation, BengaluruGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clinical applications of nucleus NRT (2011) Neural Response Telemetry. Cochlear, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kasim KS, Abdullah AB, Hashim WF (2013) Correlation between neural response telemetry (NRT) measurement level and behavioral (T-level and C-level) in prelingual cochlear implant patients. J Atolarynol 3:3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Institute of Medical SciencesBanaras Hindu UniversityVaranasiIndia

Personalised recommendations