Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users

Karen Pedley*, Colleen Psarros, Kirsty Gardner-Berry, Alison Parker, Suzanne C. Purdy, Pam Dawson, Kerrie Plant

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)


We investigated the acceptability of electrophysiologically derived MAPs and the effect of these MAPs on speech perception in elderly adults using Nucleus 24 cochlear implants. Eight implant recipients aged 75 years or older trialed an electrophysiologically derived MAP and a behavioral MAP. The electrophysiologically derived MAP was based on the threshold and maximum comfort level for electrode 10 and evoked compound action potential thresholds measured on six electrodes using neural response telemetry (NRT). Word perception at 55 dB SPL and sentence perception in noise at 70 dB SPL were assessed after six weeks take-home experience and again after an additional two weeks of experience. During the final two weeks of take-home experience participants indicated their preferred MAP for different listening situations. The NRT derived MAP estimated behavioral T levels well, but underestimated behavioral C levels for apical electrodes in some subjects. Speech perception with NRT derived MAPs was comparable to speech perception with behaviorally measured MAPs. MAPs estimated from NRT data provided good speech perception outcomes for elderly implant recipients and were well tolerated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)254-262
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Audiology
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - May 2007
Externally publishedYes


  • Cochlear implant
  • Elderly
  • Electrically evoked compound action potentials
  • MAPping
  • Neural response telemetry
  • NRT
  • Questionnaire
  • Speech perception
  • T and C levels


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of NRT and behavioral measures for MAPping elderly cochlear implant users'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this