Electrophysiological Correlates of Behavioral Comfort Levels in Cochlear Implantees: A Prospective Study

  • S. RaghunandhanEmail author
  • A. Ravikumar
  • Mohan Kameswaran
  • Kalyani Mandke
  • R. Ranjith
Original Article


Indications for cochlear implantation have expanded today to include very young children and those with syndromes/multiple handicaps. Programming the implant based on behavioral responses may be tedious for audiologists in such cases, wherein matching an effective MAP and appropriate MAP becomes the key issue in the habilitation program. In ‘Difficult to MAP’ scenarios, objective measures become paramount to predict optimal current levels to be set in the MAP. We aimed, (a) to study the trends in multi-modal electrophysiological tests and behavioral responses sequentially over the first year of implant use, (b) to generate normative data from the above, (c) to correlate the multi-modal electrophysiological thresholds levels with behavioral comfort levels, and (d) to create predictive formulae for deriving optimal comfort levels (if unknown), using linear and multiple regression analysis. This prospective study included ten profoundly hearing impaired children aged between 2 and 7 years with normal inner ear anatomy and no additional handicaps. They received the Advanced Bionics HiRes 90K Implant with Harmony Speech processor and used HiRes-P with Fidelity 120 strategy. They underwent, Impedance Telemetry, Neural Response Imaging, Electrically Evoked Stapedial Response Telemetry and Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response tests at 1, 4, 8 and 12 months of implant use, in conjunction with behavioral Mapping. Trends in electrophysiological and behavioral responses were analyzed using paired t test. By Karl Pearson’s correlation method, electrode-wise correlations were derived for NRI thresholds versus Most Comfortable Levels (M-Levels) and offset based (apical, mid-array and basal array) correlations for EABR and ESRT thresholds versus M-Levels were calculated over time. These were used to derive predictive formulae by linear and multiple regression analysis. Such statistically predicted M-Levels were compared with the behaviorally recorded M-Levels among the cohort, using Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability test method for confirming the efficacy of this method. NRI, ESRT and EABR thresholds showed statistically significant positive correlations with behavioral M-Levels, which improved with implant use over time. These correlations were used to derive predicted M-Levels using regression analysis. Such predicted M-Levels were found to be in proximity to the actual behavioral M-Levels recorded among this cohort and proved to be statistically reliable. When clinically applied, this method was found to be successful among subjects of our study group. Although there existed disparities of a few clinical units, between the actual and predicted comfort levels among the subjects, this statistical method was able to provide a working MAP, close to the behavioral MAP used by these children. The results help to infer that behavioral measurements are mandatory to program cochlear implantees, but in cases where they are difficult to obtain, this study method may be used as reference for obtaining additional inputs, in order to set an optimal MAP. The study explores the trends and correlations between electrophysiological tests and behavioral responses, recorded over time among a cohort of cochlear implantees and provides a statistical method which may be used as a guideline to predict optimal behavioral levels in difficult situations among future implantees. In ‘Difficult to MAP’ scenarios, following a protocol of sequential behavioral programming, in conjunction with electrophysiological correlates will provide the best outcomes.


Cochlear Implant (CI) Impedance Telemetry (IT) Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP) Neural Response Imaging (NRI) Electrically Evoked Stapedial Response Telemetry (ESRT) Electrically Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response (EABR) Measurable Auditory Percept (MAP) Most Comfortable Level (M-Level) Clinical Unit (CU) 


  1. 1.
    Spivak LG, Chute PM (1994) The relationship between electrical acoustic reflex thresholds and behavioral comfort levels in children and adult cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 15(2):184–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hodges AV, Butts SL, King JE (2003) Electrically evoked stapedial reflexes: utility in cochlear implant patients. Cochlear implants—objective measures. Whurr Publishers, London, pp 81–93Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shallop JK, Ash KR (1995) Relationships among comfort levels determined by cochlear implant patient’s self-programming, audiologist’s programming, and electrical stapedius reflex thresholds. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 166:175–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davids T, Valero J, Papsin BC, Harrison RV, Gordon KA (2008) Effects of stimulus manipulation on electrophysiological responses of pediatric cochlear implant users—Part I: duration effects and Part II: rate effects. Hear Res 244:7–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mason S (2004) Electrophysiologic and objective monitoring of the cochlear implant during surgery: implementation, audit and outcomes. Int J Audiol 43:33–38Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Brown CJ, Luk B, Wolaver A, Gervais J (2000) The relationship between EAP and EABR thresholds and levels used to program the nucleus 24 speech processor: data from adults. Ear Hear 21:151–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown CJ (2003) Clinical uses of electrically evoked auditory nerve and brainstem responses. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 11(5):383–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon KA, Papsin BC, Harrison RV (2004) Toward a battery of behavioral and objective measures to achieve optimal cochlear implant stimulation levels in children. Ear Hear 25:447–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thai-Van H, Chanal JM, Coudert C, Veuillet E, Truy E, Collet L (2001) Relationship between NRT measurements and behavioral levels in children with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant may change over time: preliminary report. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 58:153–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han D-M, Chen X-Q, Zhao X-T, Kong Y, Li Y-M et al (2005) Comparisons between Neural Response Imaging thresholds; electrically evoked auditory reflex thresholds and most comfortable loudness levels in CII Bionic Ear users with HiRes sound processing strategies. Acta Oto-Laryngol 125(7):732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caner G, Olgun L, Gultekin G, Balaban (2007) Optimizing fitting in children using objective measures such as neural response imaging and electrically evoked stapedius reflex threshold. Otol Neurotol 28(5):637–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smoorenburg GF, Willeboer C, Van Dijk JE (2002) Speech perception in Nucleus CI24M cochlear implant users with processor settings based on electrically evoked compound action potential thresholds. Audiol Neurootol 7:335–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Nardo W, Ippolito S, Quaranta N, Cadoni G, Galli J (2003) Correlation between NRT measurement and behavioural levels in patients with the nucleus 24 cochlear implant. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 23:352–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abbas PJ, Hughes ML, Van der Werff KR, Brown CJ, Kelsay DM, Teagle HF, Lowder MW (2001) A longitudinal study of electrode impedance, the electrically evoked compound action potential and behavioral measures in nucleus 24 cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 22(6):471–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zimmerling MJ, Hochmair ES (2002) EAP recordings in CI patients—correlations with psychophysical measures and possible implications for patient fitting. Ear Hear 23:81–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Raghunandhan
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Ravikumar
    • 2
  • Mohan Kameswaran
    • 1
  • Kalyani Mandke
    • 3
  • R. Ranjith
    • 4
  1. 1.Madras ENT Research FoundationChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of ENT and H & N SurgerySri Ramachandra UniversityChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Mandke Hearing ServicesPuneIndia
  4. 4.MERF-Institute of Speech & HearingChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations