Literature DB >> 16886849

Auditory cortical responses in patients with cochlear implants.

S Burdo1, S Razza, F Di Berardino, G Tognola.   

Abstract

Currently, the most commonly used electrophysiological tests for cochlear implant evaluation are Averaged Electrical Voltages (AEV), Electrical Advisory Brainstem Responses (EABR) and Neural Response Telemetry (NRT). The present paper focuses on the study of acoustic auditory cortical responses, or slow vertex responses, which are not widely used due to the difficulty in recording, especially in young children. Aims of this study were validation of slow vertex responses and their possible applications in monitoring postimplant results, particularly restoration of hearing and auditory maturation. In practice, the use of tone-bursts, also through hearing aids or cochlear implants, as in slow vertex responses, allows many more frequencies to be investigated and louder intensities to be reached than with other tests based on a click as stimulus. Study design focused on latencies of N1 and P2 slow vertex response peaks in cochlear implants. The study population comprised 45 implant recipients (aged 2 to 70 years), divided into 5 different homogeneous groups according to chronological age, age at onset of deafness, and age at implantation. For each subject, slow vertex responses and free-field auditory responses (PTAS) were recorded for tone-bursts at 500 and 2000 Hz before cochlear implant surgery (using hearing aid amplification) and during scheduled sessions at 3rd and 12th month after implant activation. Results showed that N1 and P2 latencies decreased in all groups starting from 3rd through 12th month after activation. Subjects implanted before school age or at least before age 8 yrs showed the widest latency changes. All subjects showed a reduction in the gap between subjective thresholds (obtained with free field auditory responses) and objective thresholds (obtained with slow vertex responses), obtained in presurgery stage and after cochlear implant. In conclusion, a natural evolution of neurophysiological cortical activities of the auditory pathway, over time, was found especially in young children with prelingual deafness and implanted in preschool age. Cochlear implantation appears to provide hearing restoration, demonstrated by the sharp reduction of the gap between subjective free field auditory responses and slow vertex responses threshold obtained with hearing aids vs. cochlear implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16886849      PMCID: PMC2639983     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital        ISSN: 0392-100X            Impact factor:   2.124


  15 in total

1.  Dependence of cortical plasticity on correlated activity of single neurons and on behavioral context.

Authors:  E Ahissar; E Vaadia; M Ahissar; H Bergman; A Arieli; M Abeles
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-09-04       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Maturation of human cortical auditory function: differences between normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  C W Ponton; M Don; J J Eggermont; M D Waring; A Masuda
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Multi-channel cochlear implant patients with different open speech understanding show some similar basic psychophysical results.

Authors:  Y Cazals; M Pelizzone; A Kasper; P Montandon
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1990

4.  A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Michael F Dorman; Anthony J Spahr
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.570

5.  Prolonged deafness limits auditory system developmental plasticity: evidence from an evoked potentials study in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  C W Ponton; J K Moore; J J Eggermont
Journal:  Scand Audiol Suppl       Date:  1999

6.  Evaluation of five different cochlear implant designs: audiologic assessment and predictors of performance.

Authors:  B J Gantz; R S Tyler; J F Knutson; G Woodworth; P Abbas; B F McCabe; J Hinrichs; N Tye-Murray; C Lansing; F Kuk
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.325

7.  Cerebral auditory plasticity and cochlear implants.

Authors:  M Manrique; F J Cervera-Paz; A Huarte; N Perez; M Molina; R García-Tapia
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  1999-10-05       Impact factor: 1.675

8.  Use of multichannel cochlear implants in obstructed and obliterated cochleas.

Authors:  B J Gantz; B F McCabe; R S Tyler
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 3.497

9.  Initial observations of a human temporal bone with a multi-channel implant.

Authors:  F R Galey
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl       Date:  1984

Review 10.  Auditory-evoked potential studies of cortical maturation in normal hearing and implanted children: correlations with changes in structure and speech perception.

Authors:  Jos J Eggermont; Curtis W Ponton
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 1.494

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Assessment of Speech Perception Abilities in Cochlear Implant Children.

Authors:  Salwa Mourad Abdelmawgoud Elsayed
Journal:  Iran J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2022-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.