Literature DB >> 17350776

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? Part 2: On electrically evoked late auditory responses.

Jeanne Guiraud1, Stéphane Gallego, Laure Arnold, Patrick Boyle, Eric Truy, Lionel Collet.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to distinguish the effects of different parameters on latencies of wave N1, wave P2, and inter-peak interval N1-P2 of electrical late auditory responses (ELARs). ELARs were recorded from four intra-cochlear electrodes in fourteen adult HiRes90K cochlear implant users who had at least three months of experience. The relationship between latencies and stimulation sites in the cochlea was characterized to assess the influence of the auditory pathway anatomy on ELARs, i.e., whether the speed of neural propagation varies according to the place that is activated in the cochlea. Audiograms before implantation, duration of deafness, and psychophysics at first fitting were used to describe the influence of deafness characteristics on latencies. The stimulation sites were found to have no effect on ELAR latency and, while there was no influence of psychophysics on latency, a strong relationship was shown with duration of deafness and the pre-implantation audiogram. Thus, ELAR latency was longer for poorer audiograms and longer durations of deafness and this relationship appeared to be independent of stimulation parameters such as stimulation site. Comparison between these findings and those from the equivalent study on EABR waves IIIe and Ve latency [Guiraud, J., Gallego, S., Arnold, L., Boyle, P., Truy, E., Collet, L., 2007. Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? (1): On electrically evoked auditory brainstem responses. Hear. Res. 223 (1-2), 48-60] shows that, while ELAR and EABR latencies are related with parameters that reflect the integrity of the auditory pathway, ELAR latency is less dependent on stimulation parameters than EABR latency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17350776     DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2007.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  3 in total

1.  Evaluation of cochlear implant users' performance using middle and late latency responses.

Authors:  Murat Kurnaz; Bulent Satar; Sertac Yetiser
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06-17       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  The Role of the P1 Latency in Auditory and Speech Performance Evaluation in Cochlear Implanted Children.

Authors:  Shan Xiong; Liwei Jiang; Yu Wang; Tao Pan; Furong Ma
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 3.599

3.  A Cochlear Implant Performance Prognostic Test Based on Electrical Field Interactions Evaluated by eABR (Electrical Auditory Brainstem Responses).

Authors:  Nicolas Guevara; Michel Hoen; Eric Truy; Stéphane Gallego
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.