OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to test for differences in late electrically evoked auditory potentials between subjects exhibiting "good" versus "poor" speech recognition performances with their cochlear implants. METHODS: Late auditory evoked responses were measured in 30 subjects equipped with the Digisonic (MXM, Antibes, France) cochlear implant, 15 of whom had "good" speech recognition scores (i.e., more than 89% correct phoneme identification without lip reading). The 15 other subjects had poorer speech recognition scores (i.e., less than 85%). RESULTS: Differences in N1P2 amplitude, as well as P1, N1, and P2 latencies, and N1-P1 and N1-P2 latency intervals were tested. Wave P2 latency was found to be significantly different between the two groups (P =.016), being shorter in "good" than in "poor" performers. The strength of the statistical relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables (r2 = 17%) was substantially smaller than that observed using electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) for the same implanted device (r2 = 49% for the EABR wave III-V latency interval). CONCLUSIONS: Some characteristics of late electrically evoked auditory potentials differ significantly among cochlear implant users depending on their speech recognition performance. However, the relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables is more pronounced when early (brainstem) rather than late (cortical) evoked responses are considered.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to test for differences in late electrically evoked auditory potentials between subjects exhibiting "good" versus "poor" speech recognition performances with their cochlear implants. METHODS: Late auditory evoked responses were measured in 30 subjects equipped with the Digisonic (MXM, Antibes, France) cochlear implant, 15 of whom had "good" speech recognition scores (i.e., more than 89% correct phoneme identification without lip reading). The 15 other subjects had poorer speech recognition scores (i.e., less than 85%). RESULTS: Differences in N1P2 amplitude, as well as P1, N1, and P2 latencies, and N1-P1 and N1-P2 latency intervals were tested. Wave P2 latency was found to be significantly different between the two groups (P =.016), being shorter in "good" than in "poor" performers. The strength of the statistical relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables (r2 = 17%) was substantially smaller than that observed using electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) for the same implanted device (r2 = 49% for the EABR wave III-V latency interval). CONCLUSIONS: Some characteristics of late electrically evoked auditory potentials differ significantly among cochlear implant users depending on their speech recognition performance. However, the relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables is more pronounced when early (brainstem) rather than late (cortical) evoked responses are considered.
Authors: Liliane Aparecida Fagundes Silva; Maria Inês Vieira Couto; Fernanda C L Magliaro; Robinson Koji Tsuji; Ricardo Ferreira Bento; Ana Claudia Martinho de Carvalho; Carla Gentile Matas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 3.240