Effects of Stimulus Polarity and Artifact Reduction Method on the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
Effects of Stimulus Polarity and Artifact Reduction Method on the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0000000000000392
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Baudhuin JL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hughes ML;Goehring JL;Baudhuin JL
我们实验室之前的研究比较了电诱发复合动作电位（ECAP）伪影减少方法，结果表明阴极前向掩蔽比交替极性掩蔽的振幅更大，阈值更低。对这一结果的一种解释是，使用交替极性的阳极领先相引起的兴奋性反应较少（与最近对人类的研究结果相反），当将其与阴极领先刺激的反应平均时，会产生较小的振幅。另一种解释是，对阳极和阴极领先脉冲的响应的潜伏期不同，当它们一起平均时，由于时间涂抹，导致振幅小于单独的任何一个极性。本研究的目的是分离刺激极性和伪影减少法的影响，以确定两者的相对影响。本研究采用受试者内设计。采用阴极前向掩蔽（CathFM）、阳极前向掩蔽（AnodFM）和交替极性（AltPol）对23名CI受体（N=13耳蜗和N=10 Advanced Bionics）获得ECAP生长函数。比较不同方法的N1潜伏期、振幅、振幅增长函数斜率和阈值。由于设备之间的固有差异，每个制造商的数据被单独分析。在人工耳蜗和高级仿生学参与者中，AnodFM的N1潜伏期明显短于CathFM和AltPol。耳蜗受者AnodFM的振幅大于CathFM或AltPol；不同方法对高级仿生学受者的振幅无显著差异。人工耳蜗受试者的斜坡最浅，而高级仿生学受试者的斜坡无显著差异。人工耳蜗受者的AltPol阈值显著高于两种FM方法；高级仿生学接受者在不同方法的阈值上没有差异。对于耳蜗装置，AltPol观察到的较小振幅和较高阈值似乎是极性之间延迟差异的结果。这些结果表明，AltPol对于管理ECAP记录的刺激伪影并不理想。对于高级仿生学组，振幅、斜率或阈值的方法之间没有显着差异，这表明极性和伪影减少方法对这些设备的影响很小。我们假设极性效应最小的对称双相脉冲，缺乏相间间隙，如那些使用先进的仿生学设备；然而，这需要进一步的调查。
Previous research from our laboratory comparing electrically evoked compound action potential (ECAP) artifact reduction methods has shown larger amplitudes and lower thresholds with cathodic-leading forward masking than with alternating polarity. One interpretation of this result is that the anodic-leading phase used with alternating polarity elicits a less excitatory response (in contrast to results from recent studies with humans), which when averaged with responses to cathodic-leading stimuli, results in smaller amplitudes. Another interpretation is that the latencies of the responses to anodic- and cathodic-leading pulses differ, which when averaged together, result in smaller amplitudes than for either polarity alone due to temporal smearing. The purpose of this study was to separate the effects of stimulus polarity and artifact reduction method to determine the relative effects of each. This study used a within-subjects design. ECAP growth functions were obtained using cathodic-leading forward masking (CathFM), anodic-leading forward masking (AnodFM), and alternating polarity (AltPol) for 23 CI recipients (N=13 Cochlear and N=10 Advanced Bionics). N1 latency, amplitude, slope of the amplitude-growth function, and threshold were compared across methods. Data were analyzed separately for each manufacturer due to inherent differences between devices. N1 latencies were significantly shorter for AnodFM than for CathFM and AltPol for both Cochlear and Advanced Bionics participants. Amplitudes were larger for AnodFM than for either CathFM or AltPol for Cochlear recipients; amplitude was not significantly different across methods for Advanced Bionics recipients. Slopes were shallowest for CathFM for Cochlear subjects, but were not significantly different among methods for Advanced Bionics subjects. Thresholds with AltPol were significantly higher than both FM methods for Cochlear recipients; there was no difference in threshold across methods for the Advanced Bionics recipients. For Cochlear devices, the smaller amplitudes and higher thresholds observed for AltPol appear to be the result of latency differences between polarities. These results suggest that AltPol is not ideal for managing stimulus artifact for ECAP recordings. For the Advanced Bionics group, there were no significant differences among methods for amplitude, slope, or threshold, which suggests that polarity and artifact reduction method have little influence in these devices. We postulate that polarity effects are minimized for symmetrical biphasic pulses that lack an interphase gap, such as those used with Advanced Bionics devices; however, this requires further investigation.