Literature DB >> 12476089

Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures.

Jill B Firszt1, Ron D Chambers And, Nina Kraus.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this study was to relate electrically evoked potentials recorded from different levels of the auditory pathway with behavioral measures obtained from adult cochlear implant subjects. The hypothesis was that adult recipients of cochlear implants who have open-set speech perception and those recipients with no open-set speech perception would differ in their neurophysiologic responses recorded at one or more levels of the auditory pathway.
DESIGN: The subjects were 11 adults implanted with the Clarion cochlear implant. The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR, Wave V), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR, Na-Pa complex), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR, N1-P2 complex), were recorded from three intra-cochlear electrodes. The stimuli used to record the evoked potentials varied in rate and amplitude. Behavioral measures (between threshold and upper limit of comfortable loudness) were used to define the subject's dynamic range at the different stimulus rates. Word and sentence recognition tests evaluated subjects' speech perception in quiet and noise. Evoked potential and behavioral measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance for repeated measures and correlational analyses.
RESULTS: Subjects without open-set speech recognition demonstrated 1) poorly formed or absent evoked potential responses, 2) reduced behavioral dynamic ranges, 3) lack of change in the size of the dynamic range with a change in stimulus rate, and 4) longer periods of auditory deprivation. The variables that differentiated the best performers included 1) presence of responses at all three levels of the auditory pathway, with large normalized amplitudes for the EAMLR, 2) lower evoked potential thresholds for the Na-Pa complex, 3) relatively large dynamic ranges, and 4) changes in the size of the dynamic range with changes in stimulus rate.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the inability to follow changes in the temporal characteristics of the stimulus was associated with poor speech perception performance. Results also illustrate that variability in speech perception scores of cochlear implant recipients relates to neurophysiologic responses at higher cortical levels of the auditory pathway. Presumably, limited neural synchrony for elicitation of electrophysiologic responses underlies limited speech perception. Results confirm that neural encoding with electrical stimulation must provide sufficient physiologic responses of the central nervous system to perceive speech through a cochlear implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12476089     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-200212000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  20 in total

1.  Psychophysical versus physiological spatial forward masking and the relation to speech perception in cochlear implants.

Authors:  Michelle L Hughes; Lisa J Stille
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Correlation between word recognition score and intracochlear new bone and fibrous tissue after cochlear implantation in the human.

Authors:  Takefumi Kamakura; Joseph B Nadol
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.208

3.  Change in Speech Perception and Auditory Evoked Potentials over Time after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults.

Authors:  Suzanne C Purdy; Andrea S Kelly
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2016-02

4.  The transtympanic promontory stimulation test in patients with auditory deprivation: correlations with electrical dynamics of cochlear implant and speech perception.

Authors:  Mohammad Alfelasi; Jean Pierre Piron; Caroline Mathiolon; Nadjmah Lenel; Michel Mondain; Alain Uziel; Frederic Venail
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-09-30       Impact factor: 2.503

5.  Identifying cochlear implant channels with poor electrode-neuron interfaces: electrically evoked auditory brain stem responses measured with the partial tripolar configuration.

Authors:  Julie Arenberg Bierer; Kathleen F Faulkner; Kelly L Tremblay
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway.

Authors:  Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Peripheral and Central Contributions to Cortical Responses in Cochlear Implant Users.

Authors:  Rachel A Scheperle; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.570

8.  The electrically evoked auditory change complex: preliminary results from nucleus cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Carolyn J Brown; Christine Etler; Shuman He; Sara O'Brien; Sheryl Erenberg; Jae-Ryong Kim; Aayesha N Dhuldhoya; Paul J Abbas
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  The effect of changes in stimulus level on electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials.

Authors:  Jae-Ryong Kim; Carolyn J Brown; Paul J Abbas; Christine P Etler; Sara O'Brien
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.570

10.  Cortical Activation Patterns Correlate with Speech Understanding After Cochlear Implantation.

Authors:  Cristen Olds; Luca Pollonini; Homer Abaya; Jannine Larky; Megan Loy; Heather Bortfeld; Michael S Beauchamp; John S Oghalai
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.