本研究探討耳蝸異常個案於植入人工耳蝸後，運用客觀的電誘發複合活動電位（electrically evoked compound action potential, ECAP）及電誘發腦幹聽性反應（electricallyevoked auditory brainstem response, EABR）檢查的閾值結果，與電極電流設定之行為閾級值（T-level）和最大舒適級值（C-level）之關聯性。17位超過一年以上經驗之人工耳蝸使用者，其中包含5位診斷為耳蝸異常，透過行為檢查方式測量行為T-level和C-level，運用電誘發技術測量複合活動電位與聽覺腦幹反應之閾值。耳蝸異常個案中僅2位可記錄到ECAP與EABR，可測得ECAP閾值於64%的有效電極，EABR之閾值可測得佔71%的有效電極，皆無法測得ECAP及EABR之個案多為內耳嚴重鈣化或畸形，若是排除這些個案可測得EABR提升至94.2%，ECAP出現率則提升至84.6%，兩者的關聯性為中度（r=0.755）且達顯著（p＜0.01）；行為T-level與ECAP之閾值及EABR之閾值關聯性呈現較弱（個別為r=0.409; 0.304）；行為C-level與ECAP之閾值關聯性呈現中度（r=0.61），且與EABR之閾值關聯性弱（r=0.283）。ECAP及EABR皆可運用於協助臨床人工耳蝸嬰幼兒電流圖的T-level和C-level設定，EABR記錄到的比例高於ECAP，臨床上當無法透過ECAP獲得結果時，可優先以EABR為客觀檢查方式。
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EABR and ECAP in programming children cochlear implants by comparing their thresholds with behavioral T-levels and C-levels. Seventeen participants have received implantation at least for one year with Nucleus 24. Five of all participants were diagnosed as cochlear anomaly. Behavioral T-level and C-level were measured through the speech processor. Their auditory behavioral responses were reliable and stable MAPs were established. ECAP thresholds and EABR thresholds were measured with evoked potential technique. Only two out of all abnormal cochlear cases were be able to obtain both ECAP and EABR data. ECAP thresholds were measured successfully in 64% of active electrodes measured whereas EABR thresholds were measured in 71%. Participants, unsuccessful recording of ECAP and EABR were observed mostly in either with severe malformations or calcification of inner ear. Both ECAP and EABR could not be measured in four cases. If the subjects with severe malformations or calcification of inner ear were excluded, the rate of successful measurement raised to 94.2 % for EABR and 84.6 % for ECAP. The correlation between EABR and ECAP thresholds was moderate (r=0.755) and significant (p＜0.01). The correlation between behavioral T-levels and ECAP thresholds or EABR thresholds was fair (r=0.409 and 0.304, respectively). The correlation between behavioral C-levels and ECAP thresholds was moderate (r=0.61) whereas the correlation between behavioral C-levels and EABR thresholds were fair (r=0.283). However, EABR and ECAP can be used as ancillary tools in programming MAP T-levels and C-levels of young children. Generally, the rate of successful recording of EABR was higher than that of ECAP. Therefore, if ECAP could not be obtained, EABR may be applied as a priority objective assessment in clinic.
