Characteristics of the Adaptation Recovery Function of the Auditory Nerve and Its Association With Advanced Age in Postlingually Deafened Adult Cochlear Implant Users

Objective: This study aimed to (1) characterize the amount and the speed of recovery from neural adaptation at the auditory nerve (AN) and (2) assess their associations with advanced age in postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant users. Design: Study participants included 25 postlingually deafened adult, Cochlear Nucleus device users, ranging in age between 24.83 and 83.21 years at the time of testing. The stimulus was a 100-ms pulse train presented at four pulse rates: 500, 900, 1800, and 2400 pulses per second (pps). The pulse trains were presented at the maximum comfortable level measured for the 2400-pps pulse train. The electrically evoked compound action potential (eCAP) evoked by the last pulse of the pulse train (i.e., the probe pulse) was recorded. The remaining pulses of the pulse train served as the pulse-train masker. The time interval between the probe pulse and the last pulse of the pulse-train masker [i.e., masker-probe-interval (MPI)] systematically increased from 0.359 ms up to 256 ms. The adaptation recovery function (ARF) was obtained by plotting normalized eCAP amplitudes (re: the eCAP amplitude measured at the MPI of 256 ms) as a function of MPIs. The adaptation recovery ratio (ARR) was defined as the ratio between the eCAP amplitude measured at the MPI of 256 ms and that measured for the single-pulse stimulus presented at the same stimulation level. The time constants of the ARF were estimated using a mathematical model with an exponential function with up to three components. Generalized Linear Mixed effects Models were used to compare ARRs and time constants measured at different electrode locations and pulse rates, as well as to assess the effect of advanced age on these dependent variables. Results: There were three ARF types observed in this study. The ARF type observed in the same study participant could be different at different electrode locations and/or pulse rates. Substantial variations in both the amount and the speed of neural adaptation recovery among study participants were observed. The ARR was significantly affected by pulse rate but was not affected by electrode location. The effect of electrode location on the time constants of the ARF was not statistically significant. Pulse rate had a statistically significant effect on tau(1,) but not on tau(2) or tau(3). There was no statistically significant effect of age on the ARR or the time constants of the ARF. Conclusions: Neural adaptation recovery processes at the AN demonstrate substantial variations among human cochlear implant users. The recovery pattern can be nonmonotonic with up to three phases. While the amount of neural adaptation recovery decreases as pulse rate increases, only the speed of the first phase of neural adaptation recovery is affected by pulse rate. Electrode location or advanced age has no robust effect on neural adaptation recovery processes at the level of the AN for a 100-ms pulse-train masker with pulse rates of 500 to 2400 pps. The lack of sufficient participants in this study who were 40 years of age or younger at the time of testing might have precluded a thorough assessment of the effect of advanced age.