Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This study successfully compared aCAEP and eCAEP in CI users. Both acoustic and electrical P1-N1-P2 recordings obtained were clear and reliable, with good correlation. Latency increased with decreasing stimulation level, while amplitude decreased. eCAEP is potentially a better option to verify speech detection at the cortical level because it (1) uses direct stimulation and therefore creates less interference and delay of the sound processor and (2) creates more flexibility with the recording setup and stimulation setting. As such, eCAEP is an alternative method for CI optimization.
Távora‐Vieira et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: