Electrocochleography: A Review of RecordingApproaches, Clinical Applications, and New Findingsin Adults and ChildrenDOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.3.2
John A. Ferraro*
Abstract
Research related to expanding and improving the clinical use of electrocochleography (ECochG) hasbeen ongoing for 25 yr at the University of Kansas Medical Center. This article presents highlights of
findings from our laboratory during this period that have contributed to current ECochG recordingapproaches and clinical applications. A review of new data related to improving the sensitivity of ECochG
in the diagnosis of Meniere’s disease, the use of an ear canal recording approach for improving auditorybrain stem response testing in newborns, and technical aspects related to recording the cochlear micro-
phonic in newborns also will be presented.
Key Words: Action potential, auditory brain stem response, auditory evoked potential, auditoryneuropathy, cochlear microphonic, condensation, electrocochleography, endolymphatic hydrops,
extratympanic, Meniere’s disease, rarefaction, summating potential, transtympanic, tympanicmembrane
Abbreviations: ABR 5 auditory brain stem response; AEP 5 auditory evoked potential; AN 5 auditory
neuropathy; AP 5 action potential; C 5 condensation; CM 5 cochlear microphonic; ECochG 5
electrocochleography; ELH 5 endolymphatic hydrops; ET 5 extratympanic; MD 5 Meniere’s
disease; R 5 rarefaction; SP 5 summating potential; TM 5 tympanic membrane; TT 5 transtympanic
Theability to record the receptor potentials of the
cochlea and the whole nerve/compound auditory
nerve action potential (AP) in humans via elec-
trocochleography (ECochG) has led to numerous inves-
tigations in the Hearing and Speech Department’sauditory evoked potential laboratory at the University
of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) during the past
25 yr. Some of this research has been done in collabora-
tion with colleagues from other universities, most nota-
bly John Durrant (University of Pittsburgh) and Roger
Ruth (University of Virginia). In general these studies
have been designed to improve the techniques and ap-
proaches for recording ECochG noninvasively andpainlessly; identifying, modifying, and expanding its
clinical applications; and seeking ways to improve both
the sensitivity and the specificity of these measure-
ments in the diagnosis, assessment, and management
of inner ear and auditory nerve disorders.
Although it has been available to the hearing scien-
tist since the 1930s, ECochG’s emergence as a clinical
tool was due in part to the discovery and applicationof the auditory brain stem response (ABR) over 40 yr
later. Utilization of improved signal-averaging ap-
proaches for recording the miniscule and extremely
early responses of auditory centers in the brain stem
helped to direct attention back to the periphery.
Another important factor that has facilitated the clini-cal popularity of ECochG, at least in the United States,
is the development and refinement of noninvasive re-
cording techniques. Ruben and his coworkers (1960),
for example, measured the AP intraoperatively from
patients undergoing middle ear surgery. A few years
later, nonsurgical techniques that involved passing a
needle electrode through the tympanic membrane
(TM) to rest on the cochlear promontory were intro-duced (e.g., Yoshie et al, 1967; Aran and LeBert,
1968). This transtympanic (TT) recording approach to
ECochG is still used in Europe and other countries out-
side the United States. Extratympanic (ET) alterna-
tives to TT recording methods began to appear in the
early to mid-1970s. Cullen and colleagues (1972) per-
formed recordings from the lateral surface of the TM,
while Coats (1974) used a silver ball electrode gluedto a small plastic leaf to achieve recordings from the
*Hearing andSpeechDepartment, IntercampusProgram inCommunicative Disorders, andSchool of AlliedHealth,University of KansasMedical Center
John A. Ferraro, Ph.D., Information Hearing and Speech Department, University of Kansas Medical Center, 39th and Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City,KS 66160-7605; Phone: (913) 588-5937; E-mail: [email protected]
J Am Acad Audiol 21:145–152 (2010)
145
ear canal. My initial research utilizing ECochG was
based on ear canal measurements made with the Coats
Mylar leaf electrode (Ferraro et al, 1983; Ferraro et al,
1985). In subsequent studies we employed a gold foilelectrode wrapped around a compressible foam earplug
(i.e., the TIPtrodeTM), which tended to produce less dis-
comfort for subjects than the leaf electrode (e.g., Ruth,
Lambert, et al, 1988). Since around 1990, however, vir-
tually all of our adult studies have utilized a modified
version of the electrode described by Stypulkowski
and Staller (1987), which directed and facilitated atten-
tion back to the TM as the primary site of choice forECochG recordings. Figure 1 is an illustration of the
“tymptrode” we currently use for our recordings.
The purpose of this article is to provide a review of
recent research in our clinic/laboratory at the KUMC
related to the recording methods and clinical applica-
tions of ECochG. These studies include a 5yr retrospec-
tive review of our patient database to evaluate the
sensitivity and specificity of the recording protocol weuse when ECochG is administered to help identify/rule
out Meniere’s disease/endolymphatic hydrops. Other
research utilizing an ECochG approach to record the
ABR and cochlear microphonic (CM) in newborns also
will be described. For amore complete review of current
ECochG procedures and applications that includes a
discussion of electrode and patient preparation, re-
cording parameters, waveform interpretation, and nor-mative values, the reader is referred to Ferraro and
Durrant (2006) and Ferraro (2007).
ECochG RECORDING METHOD
Asindicated above, there are two, general recording
approaches for ECochG: TT and ET. The TT
method involves penetrating the TMwith a needle elec-
trode so that the tip rests on the cochlear promontory.
ET approaches utilize primary recording sites that are
peripheral to the tympanic cavity (thus the name“extratympanic”). The skin of the ear canal and the
external surface of the TM have evolved to be the most
popular recording sites. I use the term TM ECochG for
the latter approach (Ferraro and Ferguson, 1989) even
though this procedure is still considered to be an ET
one. As my colleagues and I have reported numeroustimes (e.g., Ferraro, 2000; Ferraro and Durrant,
2002, 2006), both TT and ET approaches to ECochG
have advantages and disadvantages. An advantage of
the TT approach is the proximity of the primary record-
ing electrode to the response generators, which produ-
ces large components with relatively little signal
averaging. ET recordings require more signal averag-
ing and are smaller in magnitude but do not requirethe assistance of a physician to place the electrode or
a topical (usually) anesthetic to dull the pain of punctur-
ing the TM. In 1994, my colleagues and I compared TT
and ET (TM) recordings from the same patients. Figure
2 illustrates our findings from this study (Ferraro et al,
1994). The ECochG tracings in the top panel were
recorded from the cochlear promontory of a patient with
suspectedMeniere’s disease (MD), while the lower trac-ings were measured from the TM. Although the magni-
tude of the TT recordings is approximately four times
larger than the TM responses, both sets of waveforms
display an enlarged summating potential (SP)/AP
amplitude ratio, which was the primary diagnostic cri-
terion we used for reporting a positive finding for MD.
In other words, the features of the waveform that were
essential to interpreting the electrocochleogram were
Figure 1. Illustration of the “tymptrode” used for recording elec-trocochleography from the tympanic membrane (from Ferraro,2007, p. 401).
Figure 2. Abnormal electrocochleograph responses to clicksrecorded from the promontory (transtympanic [TT]) and tympanicmembrane (TM) of the affected ear of a patient withMeniere’s dis-ease. Although the magnitudes of the TT responses are approxi-mately 43 greater than the extratympanic recordings, both setsof tracings display an enlarged summating potential (SP)/actionpotential (AP) amplitude ratio, which is a positive finding forMeniere’s disease. “Base” indicates the reference point for SPandAP amplitudemeasurements. The amplitude scale is inmicro-volts; the time scale is in milliseconds. Stimulus onset was delayedby 2msec (from Ferraro et al, 1994, p. 27).
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 21, Number 3, 2010
146
apparent in both TT and TM recordings. Furthermore,
Stypulkowski and Staller (1987) and Ferguson and I
(Ferraro and Ferguson, 1989) showed that ECochG
components recorded from the TM displayed magni-tudes that were at least twice as large as corresponding
measurements made from the ear canal. Thus, the TM
offers a good and practical compromise between ear
canal and TT recording sites, producing components
with larger magnitudes than corresponding ET mea-
surements while eliminating the discomfort and
medical-related requirements associated with TT ap-
proaches and, most importantly, preserving the fea-tures of the waveform essential to the diagnosis of MD.
It also should be noted that the technique of placing
the tymptrode is partially “blind” since the TM is
obscured by the electrode tip during this process. Proper
placement is verified by having the subject acknowledge
when he or she feels it touching the membrane and
monitoring of the electrical noise floor as the electrode
is inserted into the ear canal. The noise floor drops dra-matically and becomes free of cyclic artifact and clipped
peaks when the tip makes proper contact with the TM.
In addition, although TM recordings can be made using
circumaural headphones, tubal earphones by compari-
son offer at least two important advantages: (1) the
speaker diaphragm is farther away from the ear, which
helps to reduce electromagnetic artifact in the record-
ing, and (2) the compressible foam tip of the sound tubehelps to stabilize and hold the tymptrode in place.
ECochG IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF MENIERE’S
DISEASE/ENDOLYMPHATIC HYDROPS
As shown in Figure 2, and documented in the liter-
ature for over 30 yr, ECochG responses recordedfrom patients with MD/endolymphatic hydrops (ELH)
often are characterized by an enlarged SP and SP/AP
amplitude ratio (e.g., Schmidt et al, 1974; Eggermont,
1976; Gibson et al, 1977; Morrison et al, 1980; Coats,
1981, 1986; Kitahara et al, 1981; Goin et al, 1982;
Kumagami et al, 1982; Ferraro et al, 1983; Ferraro
et al, 1985; Staller, 1986; Dauman et al, 1988; Ruth,
Lambert, et al, 1988; Ruth, 1990; Ferraro andKrishnan, 1997). One rationale that has been offered
(but not verified) for this finding is that an increase
in endolymph volume creates mechanical biasing of
vibration of the organ of Corti that amplifies the SP
since at least some of its components represent non-
linearities in the transduction process. Whether the na-
ture of this increased distortion is mechanical (Gibson
et al, 1977) and/or electrical (Durrant and Dallos, 1972;Durrant and Gans, 1975) has not been resolved, and
other factors such as biochemical and/or vascular
changes may also be responsible (Eggermont, 1976;
Goin et al, 1982; Staller, 1986). Despite verification of
its bases, an enlarged SP/AP amplitude ratio has evolved
as the primary characteristic of an electrocochleogram
that is positive for MD.
While the specificity of the SP/AP amplitude ratio inthe diagnosis MD has been reported to be 90% or higher
(Ferraro et al, 1983; Pou et al, 1996;Murphy et al, 1997),
the sensitivity of this measurement in the general
Meniere’s population is only between 55 and 65% or less
(Gibson et al, 1977; Coats, 1981; Kitahara et al, 1981;
Kumagami et al, 1982; Campbell et al, 1992; Margolis
et al, 1995; Pou et al, 1996; Ferraro and Tibbils, 1999).
In other words, patients who display enlarged SP/APamplituderatiosarevery likely toreceiveapositivediag-
nosis forMD,butonlyaroundhalf of the individualswith
MD have enlarged ratios. Fluctuations in symptoms,
deterioration of outer hair cells inmore advanced stages
of the disease, differences in recording conditions and
techniques among researchers/clinicians, and other fac-
tors are possible reasons to account for this lack of sen-
sitivity (Ferraro and Ruth, 1994). Nonetheless, there isno question that this factor has limited the clinical use-
fulness of ECochG in the diagnosis of MD.
Attempts to improve the sensitivity of ECochG have
included studies designed to correlate positive findings
with symptoms at the time of testing (Ferraro et al,
1985) and manipulation of various recording parame-
ters such as stimulus type, rate, and polarity (Durrant
and Ferraro, 1991; Levine et al, 1992; Margolis et al,1992;Margolis et al, 1995; Orchik et al, 1998). Although
differences between MD and non-MD subjects were
reported under all of these conditions, data on whether
they led to an overall improvement of ECochG sensitiv-
ity were not reported.
Some of the above studies (Levine et al, 1992;Margolis
et al, 1992; Margolis et al, 1995; Orchik et al, 1998)
reported abnormal AP–N1 latency differences betweenthe electrocochleograms evoked by condensation versus
rarefaction clicks in MD patients. The rationale for this
finding was that the vibration of the cochlear partition
under hydropic conditions may be abnormally restricted
(or enhanced) in one direction over the other. As a result,
the velocity of the travelingwave (onwhich the AP–N1 is
dependent) will differ depending on whether the initial
deflection of the partition is in condensation or rarefac-tion phase. This relationship is obscured when stimuli
are presented in alternating polarity, giving way to an
SP–AP complex that appears to have a prolonged dura-
tion.Nearly 20yr earlier,Morrison and colleagues (1980)
also observed a widened SP–AP duration inMD patients
but attributed this finding to a prolonged after-ringing of
the CM under hydropic conditions. Since this earlier
study employed alternating polarity stimuli, it may belikely that Morrison and colleagues were observing
the same phenomenon as Levine and colleagues that
occurs when phase-disparate AP–N1 components from
two different waveforms are added together.
Electrocochleography Update/Ferraro
147
Regardless of the rationale for a widened SP–AP com-
plex, the above studiesmotivated us to beginmeasuring
both the amplitude and the duration of these compo-
nents to possibly improve the sensitivity of ECochGin the diagnosis ofMD.We accomplished our areameas-
urements using a special software routine from Nicolet
designed tomeasure the area under a curve defined by a
straight line connecting two cursors placed at selected
points on the ECochGwaveform. Figure 3 fromDevaiah
and colleagues (2003, p. 548) illustrates this method.
The results of our measurements yielded two studies
(Ferraro and Tibbils, 1999; Devaiah et al, 2003) thatshowed a significant improvement in ECochG’s sensi-
tivity to MD in the relatively small populations that
were studied when area values are included in the
assessment. After 5 yr of collecting data that included
area measurements we recently performed a retrospec-
tive chart review of our patient database to evaluate the
sensitivity and specificity of all of the ECochG param-
eters we measure from suspected MD patients (Ferraroand Al-Momani, 2008; Al-Momani et al, 2009). In this
study, ECochG results from 178 suspected MD patients
were compared to the eventual diagnoses these individ-
uals received from their physicians. Our protocol
included recording ECochG to broadband clicks pre-
sented in alternating polarity andmeasuring the ampli-
tudes and areas of the SP and AP (from which SP/APamplitude and area ratios are derived), the absolute la-
tency of the AP–N1, and the amplitude of the SP to 1000
and 2000Hz tone bursts (two-cycle rise–fall, 10-cycle
plateau). The results of this study revealed the sensitiv-
ity and specificity of our recording protocol leading to
the diagnosis of MD to be 92% and 84%, respectively.
The sensitivity value in particular is considerably higher
than previously reported and was attributable to theinclusion of area values in our measurements, espe-
cially the SP/AP area ratio. Thus, when measuring
the area of the SP–AP complex is included in the testing
protocol, ECochG is both a highly specific and sensitive
tool for diagnosing MD.
EFFECTS OF HEARING LOSS
I n our experience, my colleagues and I have found
that patients with sensorineural hearing loss greater
than 40–50dB HL in the 1000–4000Hz range are not
good candidates for ECochG. First, the relationship
between the SP and AP is altered as threshold increases
(Asai and Mori, 1989; Mori et al, 1993), which could
affect both amplitude and area values. Second, the
reduction of component amplitudes that tends to accom-pany increased hearing loss makes both the SP and AP
difficult to identify and separate from each other in
extratympanic recordings. Finally, when hearing loss
is greater than 60db HL above 500Hz both components
may be unrecordable from the TM or at least so poorly
defined as to render ECochG ineffective for diagnosing
MD/ELH. Thus, ECochG is best applied in suspected
MD/ELH patients in the earlier stages of the disorder,when hearing (at least in the higher frequencies) may
still be normal, or in themild to lowmoderate loss range,
and not “after the fact,” when the disease and its accom-
panying hearing loss have progressed over time.
PEDIATRIC APPLICATIONS OF ECochG
We have not confined the utilization of electroco-chleographic recording approaches to adult pop-
ulations in our clinic/laboratory. Several years ago we
began studying the feasibility of ear canal recordings
in newborns and infants, primarily as a way to improve
the amplitude and thus detectability of ABR compo-
nents measured during pediatric hearing screening/
assessment procedures. These studies were motivated
by previous investigations in adult populations showingthat such improvements can be achieved by the use of
various ear canal electrodes in combination with more
conventional ABR recording procedures (Coats, 1974;
Harder and Arlinger, 1981; Lang et al, 1981; Walter
Figure 3. Measurement of the summating potential (SP)/actionpotential (AP) area ratio. On5onset of SP (baseline); N1s5onsetof the AP–N1; N1e5offset of AP–N1; bl5next point on the wave-formwhere amplitude returns to baseline. Shaded area of the trac-ing in the top panel (A) represents the total area of the SP and AP,which is divided by the area of the AP–N1 component (shaded por-tion of the tracing in the lower panel [B]) to derive the SP/AP arearatio (from Devaiah et al, 2003, p. 548).
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 21, Number 3, 2010
148
and Blevgad, 1981; Yanz and Dodds, 1985; Durrant,
1986; Ruth, Mills, et al, 1988; Ferraro and Ferguson,
1989; Bauch and Olsen, 1990). In all of these studies,
the amplitude of wave I was substantially larger in bothnormal- and hard-of-hearing subjects when the ABR
was recorded using an ear canal (vs. a mastoid or ear-
lobe) site. Ruth, Mills, et al (1988) compared scalp and
ear canal ABR recordings in adults and demonstrated
more sensitive wave I thresholds when the secondary
electrode was seated in the ear canal. In 1989, Ferguson
and I found no differences between the thresholds of
waves I and V utilizing a forehead-to-TM electrode con-figuration (Ferraro and Ferguson, 1989). Furthermore,
both waves I and V were measurable in subjects with
hearing loss who did not display a wave I when the
ABR was recorded using a forehead-to-mastoid approach.
Our experiments with ear canal recordings in new-
borns began in 1994, when Bealer and colleagues
utilized gold foil wrapped around a pediatric sound-
delivery tube to record the ABR from the ear canal ina small sample of newborns. Comparison between fore-
head (1)-to-ear canal (–) and forehead (1)-to-mastoid
(–) recordings were made at 60 and 30dB nHL, which
are the two levels most commonly used in newborn
screening protocols. Wave I was consistently larger at
both stimulus levels and identifiable more frequently
at 30 dB nHL in the ear canal recordings. Another inter-
esting aspect of this study was that once constructed,the ear canal electrodes were easier and took less time
to apply than the scalp electrodes. Furthermore, be-
cause preparation of the ear canal merely involved
slight cleansing of the outer portion with a cotton swab
without scrubbing the site with water/alcohol/abrasive
compound, sleeping infants were less likely to awaken
during preparation.
More recently, funding from the Hall Foundation ofKansas City and the Deafness Research Foundation
supported two studies in our clinic/laboratory involving
ear canal recordings from newborns/infants. Gaddam
and I (2008) used a modified (i.e., shortened) TIPtrode
to compare ear canal and scalp ABRs in 45 newborns
who passed their newborn hearing screening. Figure
4 from this study is an illustration of the modified elec-
trode in place. Figure 5 displays a summary of our find-ings for wave I amplitude. As can be seen from this
graph, wave I from the ear canal is almost twice as large
as its mastoid counterpart at sound levels of 80 and
60dB nHL. Although the amplitude difference at
40 dB was not as dramatic, it was nonetheless statisti-
cally significant. At 20 dB, the differences were not sig-
nificantly different between the two approaches,
primarily because many of the ABRs did not displaya wave I at this level. When present, however, ear
canal–recorded wave I’s always had larger amplitudes
than their scalp-recorded counterparts. We are cur-
rently applying the ear canal approach to ABR record-
ings in our clinical pediatric populations and have found
it to be particularly helpful for identifying the I–III and
I–V interwave intervals in children with suspectedretrocochlear disorder (with or without hearing loss).
Additional research in our laboratory/clinic utilizing
an ear canal approach for pediatric auditory evoked
potential (AEP) testing has been directed at recording
the CM from this site. Riazi and I (2008) performed ear
canal CM recordings in both newborns and adults in an
effort to optimize recording parameters for this poten-
tial when it is used to help diagnose auditory neuropa-thy (AN). Normative data were collected from seven
full-term newborns and four adults with no known risk
factors for cochlear or retrocochlear disorders. Figure 6
displays the two-channel recordings from one of the
Figure 4. Illustration of the shortened TIPtrode seated in a new-born’s ear canal. The electrode cable from the evoked potentialunit attaches to the gold foil of the TIPtrode via a micro–alligatorclip (from Gaddam and Ferraro, 2008, p. 501).
Figure 5. Summary of wave I amplitude differences betweenhigh forehead (1)-to-mastoid (–) versus high forehead (1)-to-earcanal (–) auditory brain stem response recordings in 45 normallyhearing newborns at stimulus levels of 80, 60, and 40dB nHL.Wave I amplitude was significantly larger in the ear canal re-cordings (p , .01) at all three levels. Bars indicate 11SD (fromGaddam and Ferraro, 2008, p. 502).
Electrocochleography Update/Ferraro
149
newborns in this study to a 70dB nHL, 1000Hz tone
burst presented in both rarefaction (R) and condensa-
tion (C) polarities. The top four tracings (channel 1)
were recorded using a high forehead (1)-to-test ear
canal (–) electrode configuration, while the site of theinverting (–) electrode for the bottom tracings (channel
2) was the test ear mastoid. Once again, the ear canal
recordings displayed larger amplitudes than their mas-
toid counterparts, but an even more important finding
from this study is apparent in this figure. Namely, CM
is present only in record A7. In each set of two tracings
(R R and C C), the lower waveforms were recorded with
the sound tube pinched closed. Thus, what appears to beCM in these tracings actually is stimulus electromag-
netic artifact. To eliminate this artifact, we found it
necessary to apply strict recording and shielding/
grounding techniques that included enclosing the stim-
ulus transducer in a Mu-metal case, grounding this
case, and using a shielded and grounded electrode
cable. In addition, separating CM from stimulus arti-
fact was easier to do utilizing an ear canal recording siteand toneburst stimuli. Thus, our results indicated that
unless the above conditions are applied, considerable
caution must be exercised when recording and inter-
preting the CM in humans for clinical purposes (such
as in the diagnosis of AN). We currently are in the proc-
ess of assessing the validity of this claim by comparing
ear canal versus scalp recordings of CM in childrenwith
suspected/diagnosed AN. Our database remains too
limited at this time to report any findings.
CONCLUSIONS
ECochG has been a topic of considerable interest at
the University of Kansas Medical Center for over
25 yr. During this time our research in this area has
focused on ways to optimize noninvasive recording pro-
tocols, improve the sensitivity and specificity of this toolin the diagnosis of Meniere’s disease and other oto-
neurological disorders, and expand its clinical applica-
tions to include pediatric populations. Among other
things, our studies have identified the TM as the opti-
mal noninvasive ECochG recording site for adults. We
have used the TM for virtually all of our research stud-
ies and clinical recordings since 1990 and accomplish
our measurements with minimal/no discomfort to oursubjects/patients without ever damaging themembrane.
The use of SP and AP area measurements has sig-
nificantly improved the sensitivity of ECochG in the
diagnosis of MD while maintaining high specificity.
Unfortunately, the software for performing these mea-
surements is not yet commercially available. The AEP
unit we have used for several years that was equipped
with this routine (i.e., the Nicolet Spirit) has been dis-
continued, and we have devised our own program that
allows us to make these measurements from an ASCII
file. At the time of this writing, however, two different
manufacturers of AEP test instruments are planning to
add area-measuring software to their newer units.
Our recent research employing an electrocochleo-
graphic (i.e., ear canal) approach to AEP recordings in
children has yielded two important findings. First, new-
born ABR recordings can be obtained using the ear canal
as a recording site, resulting in significantly larger wave
I components than observed in more conventional (i.e.,
scalp) recordings. Second, ear canal recordings and the
use of toneburst stimuli facilitate the measurement of
the CM in newborns and young children when this com-
ponent is of interest (such as in the diagnosis of AN).
However, strict grounding/shielding approaches must
be applied to identify CM from stimulus artifact under
these conditions. Without such precautions, it is very
likely that stimulus artifact will be mistaken for CM,
leading to false-positive diagnoses.
Acknowledgments. I extend my grateful appreciation to
the myriad students who have completed research projects,
master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations in my laboratory
over the past 25 yr. Their work has led to important findings
regarding the recording and clinical applications of electro-
cochleography (ECochG). Recent funding from the Hall
Figure 6. Two-channel cochlear microphonic (CM) recordingsfrom a full-term newborn to a 1000Hz tone burst presented at70dB nHL in rarefaction (R) and condensation (C) polarities.The top four tracings (channel 1) were recorded using a high fore-head (1)-to-test ear canal (TEC) (–) electrode configuration. Thelower four tracings (channel 2) utilized the test ear mastoid(TEM) as the site for the inverting (–) electrode. The lower tracingsin each set of two (i.e., A5, B1, A6, and B2) were recorded when thesound tube was pinched shut, indicating the presence of stimuluselectromagnetic artifact in all conditions except tracing A7 (fromRiazi and Ferraro, 2008, p. 50).
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 21, Number 3, 2010
150
Foundation of Kansas City and the Deafness Research Foun-
dation has supported our research related to the pediatric
applications of ECochG. I dedicate this essay to the memory
of Dr. Roger Ruth, a former student, close friend, and collab-
orator who recently passed away.
REFERENCES
Al-Momani MO, Ferraro JA, Gajewski B, Ator G. (2009) Improvedsensitivity of ECochG in the diagnosis of Meniere’s disease. Int JAudiol 48(11):811–819.
Aran JM, LeBert G. (1968) Les responses nerveuse cochleaireschex l’homme, image du fonctionnement de l’oreille et nouveautest d’audiometrie objectif. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 89:361–365.
AsaiH,MoriN. (1989) Changes in summating potential and actionpotential during the fluctuation of hearing in Meniere’s disease.Scand Audiol 18:13–17.
Bauch CD, OlsenWO. (1990) Comparison of ABR amplitudes withTIPtrode and mastoid electrodes. Ear Hear 11:463–467.
Bealer J, Ferraro JA, Trouba S. (1994) ABR recorded from the earcanal in neonates. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University ofKansas Medical Center, Kansas City.
Campbell KC, Harker LA, Abbas PJ. (1992) Interpretation of elec-trocochleography in Meniere’s disease and normal subjects. AnnOtol Rhinol Laryngol 101:496–500.
Coats AC. (1974) On electrocochleographic electrode design.J Acoust Soc Am 56:708–711.
Coats AC. (1981) The summating potential andMeniere’s disease.Arch Otolaryngol 107:199–208.
Coats AC. (1986) Electrocochleography: recording techniques andclinical applications. Semin Hear 7:247–266.
Cullen JK, EllisMS, Berlin CI, LousteauRJ. (1972) Human acous-tic nerve action potential recordings from the tympanicmembranewithout anesthesia. Acta Otolaryngol 74:15–22.
Dauman R, Aran JM, Sauvage RC, Portmann M. (1988) Clinicalsignificance of the summating potential inMeniere’s disease.AmJOtol 9:31–38.
Devaiah AK, Dawson KL, Ferraro JA, Ator G. (2003) Utility ofarea curve ratio: electrocochleography in early Meniere’s disease.Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129:547–551.
Durrant JD. (1986) Observations on combined noninvasive elec-trocochleography and auditory brainstem response recording.Semin Hear 7:289–305.
Durrant JD, Dallos P. (1972) Influence of direct current polariza-tion of the cochlear partition on the summating potentials.J Acoust Soc Am 52:542–552.
Durrant JD, Gans D. (1975) Biasing of the summating potentials.Acta Otolaryngol 80:13–18.
Durrant JD, Ferraro JA. (1991) Analog model of human click-elicited SP and effects of high-pass filtering.EarHear 12:144–148.
Eggermont JJ. (1976) Summating potentials in electrocochleo-graphy: relation to hearing disorders. In: Ruben RJ, Elberling C,Salomon G, eds. Electrocochleography. Baltimore: University ParkPress, 67–87.
FerraroJA. (2000)Electrocochleography. In:RoesserRJ,ValenteM,Hosford-Dunn H, eds. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York: Thieme,425–450.
Ferraro JA. (2007) Electrocochleography. In: Roesser RJ,Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, eds. Audiology: Diagnosis, Treat-ment Strategies andPracticeManagement. 2nd edition.NewYork:Thieme, 400–425.
Ferraro JA, Al-Momani MO. (2008) Improved sensitivity ofECochG in the diagnosis of Meniere’s disease using SP and APareameasurements.Proceedings of the XXIXth International Con-gress of Audiology. 25(A).
Ferraro JA, Arenberg IK, Hassanein RS. (1985) Electrocochleog-raphy and symptoms of inner ear dysfunction. Arch Otolaryngol111:71–74.
Ferraro JA, Best LG, Arenberg IK. (1983) The use of electroco-chleography in the diagnosis, assessment and monitoring of endo-lymphatic hydrops. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 16:69–82.
Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. (2002) Electrocochleography. In: Katz J,ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. New York: Lippincott, Wil-liams and Williams, 249–273.
Ferraro JA, Durrant JD. (2006) Electrocochleography in the eval-uation of patients with Meniere’s disease/endolymphatic hydrops.J Am Acad Audiol 17:45–68.
Ferraro JA, Ferguson R. (1989) Tympanic ECochG and conven-tional ABR: a combined approach for the identification of waveI and the I–V interwave interval. Ear Hear 10:161–166.
Ferraro JA, Krishnan G. (1997) Cochlear potentials in clinicalaudiology. Audiol Neurootol 2:241–256.
Ferraro JA, RuthRA. (1994) Electrocochleography. In: Jacobson J,ed. Auditory Evoked Potentials: Overview and Basic Principles.Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 101–122.
Ferraro JA, Thedinger B, Mediavilla SJ, Blackwell W. (1994)Human summating potential to tonebursts: observations on TMversus promontory recordings in the same patient. J Am AcadAudiol 5:24–29.
Ferraro JA, Tibbils R. (1999) SP/AP area ratio in the diagnosis ofMeniere’s disease. Am J Audiol 8:21–28.
Gaddam A, Ferraro JA. (2008) ABR recordings in newborns usingan ear canal electrode. Int J Audiol 47:499–504.
Gibson WPR, Moffat DA, Ramsden RT. (1977) Clinical electroco-chleography in the diagnosis and management of Meniere’s disor-der. Audiology 16:389–401.
Goin DW, Staller SJ, Asher DL, Mischke RE. (1982) Summatingpotential in Meniere’s disease. Laryngoscope 92:1383–1389.
Harder H, Arlinger S. (1981) Ear canal compared to mastoid elec-trode placement in ABR. Scand Audiol Suppl 13:55–57.
Kitahara M, Takeda T, Yazama T. (1981) Electrocochleography inthe diagnosis of Meniere’s disease. In: Volsteen KH, ed. Meniere’sDisease, Pathogenesis, Diagnosis and Treatment. New York:Thieme-Stratton, 163–169.
Kumagami H, Nishida H, Masaaki B. (1982) Electrocochleo-graphic study of Meniere’s disease. Arch Otolaryngol 108:284–288.
Lang AH, Happonen JM, Salmivalli A. (1981) An improved tech-nique for the non-invasive recording of auditory brain-stem
Electrocochleography Update/Ferraro
151
responses with a specially constructed meatal electrode. ScandAudiol 13(Suppl.):59–62.
Levine SC, Margolis RH, Fournier EM, Winzenburg SM. (1992)Tympanic electrocochleography for evaluation of endolymphatichydrops. Laryngoscope 102:614–622.
Margolis RH, Levine SM, Fournier MA, Hunter LL, Smith SL,Lilly DJ. (1992) Tympanic electrocochleography: normal andabnormal patterns of response. Audiology 31:8–24.
Margolis RH, Rieks D, Fournier M, Levine SM. (1995) Tympanicelectrocochleography for diagnosis of Meniere’s disease. Arch Oto-laryngol Head Neck Surg 121:44–55.
Mori N, Asai H, SakagamiM. (1993) The role of summating poten-tial in the diagnosis and management of Meniere’s disease. ActaOtolaryngol (Stockh) 501(Suppl.):51–53.
Morrison AW,Moffat DA, O’Connor AF. (1980) Clinical usefulnessof electrocochleography in Meniere’s disease: an analysis of dehy-drating agents. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 13:703–721.
Murphy LA, Ferraro JA, Chertoff M, McCall S, Park D. (1997)Issues in auditory evoked potentials. In: 1997 American Academyof Audiology Convention Program. American Academy of Audiol-ogy, 64(A).
Orchik DJ, Ge NN, Shea JJ. (1998) Action potential latency shiftby rarefaction and condensation clicks in Meniere’s disease. J AmAcad Audiol 9:121–126.
Pou AM, Hirsch BE, Durrant JD, Gold SR, Kamerer DB. (1996)Efficacy of tympanic electrocochleography in the diagnosis of endo-lymphatic hydrops. Am J Otol 17:607–611.
Riazi M, Ferraro JA. (2008) Observations on mastoid versus earcanal recorded cochlear microphonic in newborns and adults.J Am Acad Audiol 19:46–55.
Ruben R, Bordley JE, Nager GT, Sekula J, Knickerbocker GG,Fisch U. (1960) Human cochlear responses to sound stimuli.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 69:459–479.
Ruth RA. (1990) Trends in electrocochleography. J Am AcadAudiol 1:134–137.
RuthRA. (1994) Electrocochleography. In: Katz J, ed.Handbook ofClinical Audiology. 4th edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins,339–350.
Ruth RA, Lambert PR, Ferraro JA. (1988) Electrocochleography:methods and clinical applications. Am J Otol 9:1–11.
Ruth RA, Mills JA, Ferraro JA. (1988) Use of disposable ear canalelectrodes in auditory brainstem response testing. Am J Otol 9:310–315.
Schmidt PH, Eggermont JJ, Odenthal DW. (1974) Study ofMeniere’s disease by electrocochleography. Acta Otolaryngol(Suppl. 316):75–84.
Staller S. (1986) Electrocochleography in the diagnosis and man-agement of Meniere’s disease. Semin Hear 7:267–277.
Stypulkowski PH, Staller SJ. (1987) Clinical evaluation of a newECoG recording electrode. Ear Hear 8:304–310.
Walter B, Blevgad B. (1981) ABR following severe head trauma. Astudy of click-evoked and frequency-following responses. ScandAudiol Suppl 13:125–130.
Yanz J, Dodds R. (1985) An ear-canal electrode for the measure-ment of the human auditory brainstem response. Ear Hear 6:98–104.
Yoshie N, Ohashi T, Suzuki T. (1967) Non-surgical recording ofauditory nerve action potentials in man. Laryngoscope 77:76–85.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 21, Number 3, 2010
152
Copyright of Journal of the American Academy of Audiology is the property of American Academy of
Audiology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Top Related