CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250106en
CoDAS
Original Article

Utility of live aided Cortical Evoked Potential (CAEP) for optimizing programming of cochlear implants

Muthu Selvi Thangaraj; Violet Priscilla; Jeffi Johnson

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/e20250106en CoDAS, vol.38, n2, e20250106, 2026
PDF
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Purpose: The present study assessed the utility of live-aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials (CAEP) to optimize most comfortable level (M-levels) in children using cochlear implants.

Methods: 14 children using CI from both genders (5 females, 9 males) in the age range of 4 to 8 years participated in the study. A live CAEP based program was carried out by adjusting programming parameters and simultaneously recording CAEP in a free-field condition. The cochlear implant’s speech processor was connected to the programming unit. The program was switched to live mode to receive an acoustic stimulus, and simultaneously, aided CAEP was measured. The M level of the program was adjusted until the P1 peak is elicited for /b//d//g/ stimuli at 40 dBnHL. This live CAEP based program was given to the same participants for them to use for two weeks. Behavioral threshold and speech perception was measured in CEAP program and compared with participants’ everyday program.

Results: Though sound field thresholds were better in live CAEP based programs, they were not statistically significant. And also, Speech perception scores were similar between every day and the live CAEP based program. Though M levels were higher in a live CAEP based program, they are not statistically significant from everyday programs.

Conclusion: Live CAEP could be used successfully to optimize programming parameters. This would certainly reduce the number of trial runs and duration of programming.

Keywords

Auditory Threshold, Speech Perception, Optimization, Children, Cochlear Implant

Referências

1 Geers AE, Nicholas JG. Enduring advantages of early cochlear implantation for spoken language development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013;56(2):643-55. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0347).

2 Geers AE. Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2003;24(1, Suppl):59S-68S. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AUD.0000051690.43989.5D. PMid:12612481.

3 Sharma A, Martin K, Roland P, Bauer P, Sweeney MH, Gilley P, et al. P1 latency as a biomarker for central auditory development in children with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005 Sep;16(8):564-73. PMid:16295243.

4 Beynon AJ, Snik AF. Use of the event-related P300 potential in cochlear implant subjects for the study of strategy-dependent speech processing. Int J Audiol. 2004;43(Suppl 1):S44-7. PMid:15732382.

5 Visram AS, Innes-Brown H, El-Deredy W, McKay CM. Cortical auditory evoked potentials as an objective measure of behavioral thresholds in cochlear implant users. Hear Res. 2015;327:35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2015.04.012. PMid:25959269.

6 Brown CJ, Jeon EK, Chiou LK, Kirby B, Karsten S, Turner C, et al. Cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded from nucleus hybrid cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2015;36(6):723-32. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000206. PMid:26295607.

7 Martins KVC, Goffi-Gomez MVS, Tsuji RK, Bento RF. Do the minimum and maximum comfortable stimulation levels influence the cortical potential latencies or the speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users? Hear Res. 2021;404:108206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2021.108206. PMid:33677193.

8 Thangaraj M, Arunachalam R, Gore M, Uppunda A. Effect of modified programming parameters on sound field thresholds, speech perception and CAEP among children using CP802 processor. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;159:111212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2022.111212. PMid:35749954.

9 Távora-Vieira D, Wedekind A, Marino R, Purdy SC, Rajan GP. Using aided cortical assessment as an objective tool to evaluate cochlear implant fitting in users with single-sided deafness. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0193081. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193081. PMid:29470548.

10 Wolfe J, Schafer E. Programming cochlear implants. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2014.

11 Lightfoot G. The N1–P2 cortical auditory evoked potential in threshold estimation. Insights Clin Pract. 2006:1-8.

12 Tremblay KL, Miller CW. How neuroscience relates to hearing aid amplification. Int J Otolaryngol. 2014;2014:641652. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/641652. PMid:25045354.

13 Prathiba DG, Arunachalam AR, Boominathan P. Performance of a closed set picture identification test in tamil for children with cochlear implant. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022;74(Suppl 3):3794-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12070-021-02611-y. PMid:36742647.

14 Golding M, Pearce W, Seymour J, Cooper A, Ching T, Dillon H. The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;18(2):117-25. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18.2.4. PMid:17402298.

15 Rance G, Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J, Dowell R. Speech perception and cortical event related potentials in children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear. 2002;23(3):239-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200206000-00008. PMid:12072616.

16 Carhart R, Jerger JF. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord. 1959;24(4):330-45. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.2404.330.

17 Ching TY, Zhang VW, Hou S, Van Buynder P. Cortical auditory evoked potentials reveal changes in audibility with nonlinear frequency compression in hearing aids for children: clinical implications. Semin Hear. 2016;37(1):25-35. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1570332.

18 Kolkaila EA, Emara AA, Gabr TA. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in children using hearing aids. Audiol Med. 2012;10(3):132-42. https://doi.org/10.3109/1651386X.2012.699610.

19 Alvarenga KF, Amorim RB, Agostinho-Pesse RS, Costa OA, Nascimento LT, Bevilacqua MC. Speech perception and cortical auditory evoked potentials in cochlear implant users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorders. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(9):1332-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.06.001. PMid:22796193.
 

Submetido em:
02/04/2025

Aceito em:
11/08/2025

69e69c68a953950fb70fa424 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Eletrônico)
CoDAS ©2026 Todos os direitos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections