» Articles » PMID: 19878712

A Method for Removing Cochlear Implant Artifact

Overview
Journal Hear Res
Date 2009 Nov 3
PMID 19878712
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

When cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) are recorded in individuals with a cochlear implant (CI), electrical artifact can make the CAEP difficult or impossible to measure. Since increasing the interstimulus interval (ISI) increases the amplitude of physiological responses without changing the artifact, subtracting CAEPs recorded with a short ISI from those recorded with a longer ISI should show the physiological response without any artifact. In the first experiment, N1-P2 responses were recorded using a speech syllable and tone, paired with ISIs that changed randomly between 0.5 and 4s. In the second experiment, the same stimuli, at ISIs of either 500 or 3000ms, were presented in blocks that were homogeneous or random with respect to the ISI or stimulus. In the third experiment, N1-P2 responses were recorded using pulse trains with 500 and 3000ms ISIs in 4 CI listeners. The results demonstrated: (1) N1-P2 response amplitudes generally increased with increasing ISI. (2) Difference waveforms were largest for the homogeneous and random-stimulus blocks than for the random-ISI block. (3) The subtraction technique almost completely eliminated the electrical artifact in individuals with cochlear implants. Therefore, the subtraction technique is a feasible method of removing from the N1-P2 response the electrical artifact generated by the cochlear implant.

Citing Articles

Interaural speech asymmetry predicts bilateral speech intelligibility but not listening effort in adults with bilateral cochlear implants.

Burg E, Thakkar T, Litovsky R Front Neurosci. 2022; 16:1038856.

PMID: 36570844 PMC: 9768552. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.1038856.


Frequency-Following Response (FFR) in cochlear implant users: a systematic review of acquisition parameters, analysis, and outcomes.

Venancio L, Leal M, Hora L, Griz S, Muniz L Codas. 2022; 34(4):e20210116.

PMID: 35081198 PMC: 9886122. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20212021116.


Systematic Comparison of Trial Exclusion Criteria for Pupillometry Data Analysis in Individuals With Single-Sided Deafness and Normal Hearing.

Burg E, Thakkar T, Fields T, Misurelli S, Kuchinsky S, Roche J Trends Hear. 2021; 25:23312165211013256.

PMID: 34024219 PMC: 8150669. DOI: 10.1177/23312165211013256.


Neural Correlates of Vocal Auditory Feedback Processing: Unique Insights from Electrocorticography Recordings in a Human Cochlear Implant User.

Miller C, Behroozmand R, Etler C, Nourski K, Reale R, Oya H eNeuro. 2021; 8(1).

PMID: 33419861 PMC: 7877459. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0181-20.2020.


Combined Brain-Perfusion SPECT and EEG Measurements Suggest Distinct Strategies for Speech Comprehension in CI Users With Higher and Lower Performance.

Kessler M, Schierholz I, Mamach M, Wilke F, Hahne A, Buchner A Front Neurosci. 2020; 14:787.

PMID: 32848560 PMC: 7431776. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00787.