The Relationship Between Cochlear Implant Speech Perception Outcomes and Electrophysiological Measures of the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed the relationship between electrophysiological measures of the electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) and speech perception scores measured in quiet and in noise in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant (CI) users. It tested the hypothesis that how well the auditory nerve (AN) responds to electrical stimulation is important for speech perception with a CI in challenging listening conditions. Design: Study participants included 24 postlingually deafened adult CI users. All participants used Cochlear Nucleus CIs in their test ears. In each participant, eCAPs were measured at multiple electrode locations in response to single-pulse, paired-pulse, and pulse-train stimuli. Independent variables included six metrics calculated from the eCAP recordings: the electrode–neuron interface (ENI) index, the neural adaptation (NA) ratio, NA speed, the adaptation recovery (AR) ratio, AR speed, and the amplitude modulation (AM) ratio. The ENI index quantified the effectiveness of the CI electrodes in stimulating the targeted AN fibers. The NA ratio indicated the amount of NA at the AN caused by a train of constant-amplitude pulses. NA speed was defined as the speed/rate of NA. The AR ratio estimated the amount of recovery from NA at a fixed time point after the cessation of pulse-train stimulation. AR speed referred to the speed of recovery from NA caused by previous pulse-train stimulation. The AM ratio provided a measure of AN sensitivity to AM cues. Participants’ speech perception scores were measured using Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant (CNC) word lists and AzBio sentences presented in quiet, as well as in noise at signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of +10 and +5 dB. Predictive models were created for each speech measure to identify eCAP metrics with meaningful predictive power. Results: The ENI index and AR speed individually explained at least 10% of the variance in most of the speech perception scores measured in this study, while the NA ratio, NA speed, the AR ratio, and the AM ratio did not. The ENI index was identified as the only eCAP metric that had unique predictive power for each of the speech test results. The amount of variance in speech perception scores (both CNC words and AzBio sentences) explained by the eCAP metrics increased with increased difficulty under the listening condition. Over half of the variance in speech perception scores measured in +5 dB SNR noise (both CNC words and AzBio sentences) was explained by a model with only three eCAP metrics: the ENI index, NA speed, and AR speed. Conclusions: Of the six electrophysiological measures assessed in this study, the ENI index is the most informative predictor for speech perception performance in CI users. In agreement with the tested hypothesis, the response characteristics of the AN to electrical stimulation are more important for speech perception with a CI in noise than they are in quiet.