Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

Cochlear Implant Surgery and Electrically-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response Recordings in C57BL/6 Mice
Published on: January 9, 2019
Auditory brainstem implant: electrophysiologic responses and subject perception
Barbara S Herrmann1, M Christian Brown, Donald K Eddington
11Department of Otology and Laryngology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; 2Department of Audiology, 3Eaton-Peabody Laboratories, 4Cochlear Implant Research Laboratory, and 5Department of Otolaryngology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Auditory brainstem implant (ABI) electrode stimulation yielding auditory sensations correlates with specific electrically evoked response patterns. These patterns, including the P3 wave and middle-latency response, are less likely when electrodes produce non-auditory sensations.
Area of Science:
- Neuroscience
- Biomedical Engineering
- Audiology
Background:
- Auditory Brainstem Implants (ABIs) bypass the cochlea to directly stimulate the auditory brainstem.
- Understanding the relationship between electrical stimulation parameters, evoked responses, and patient perception is crucial for optimizing ABI function.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare perceptual sensations from bipolar auditory brainstem implant (ABI) electrode stimulation with electrically evoked response morphology.
- To examine the relationship between bipolar and monopolar stimulation sensations.
- To correlate evoked potential morphology with monopolar stimulation sensations.
Main Methods:
- Recorded early and middle-latency auditory evoked responses to bipolar stimulation in four ABI patients.
- Categorized perceptual sensations (auditory, mixed, side effect, none) for bipolar and monopolar stimulation.
- Compared evoked response morphology (e.g., P3 wave, eMLR) with categorized sensations.
Main Results:
- Auditory or mixed sensations from bipolar stimulation correlated with the presence of P3 waves in electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses (eABR) and electrical early middle-latency responses (eMLR).
- Non-auditory sensations were not consistently distinguished by other eABR waves.
- Monopolar stimulation sensations also showed correlations with the presence of P3 and eMLR when compared to bipolar-elicited evoked potentials.
Conclusions:
- ABI electrodes eliciting auditory sensations via bipolar stimulation are more likely to produce evoked responses with P3 or middle-latency waves.
- The absence of auditory sensation from either electrode in a bipolar pair during monopolar stimulation reduces the likelihood of P3 and eMLR presence.
More Related Videos
10:50Behavioral Determination of Stimulus Pair Discrimination of Auditory Acoustic and Electrical Stimuli Using a Classical Conditioning and Heart-rate Approach
Published on: June 6, 2012
11:39Assessment of Audio-Tactile Sensory Substitution Training in Participants with Profound Deafness Using the Event-Related Potential Technique
Published on: September 7, 2022