Literature DB >> 18560864

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

Murat Kurnaz1, Bulent Satar, Sertac Yetiser.   

Abstract

Aim of the study was to investigate whether postoperative middle and late latency responses (MLR and LLR) give some clues of postoperative performance of cochlear implant (CI) users. The study was performed in ten prelingual and six postlingual-CI patients with the age ranging from 6 to 48 years (mean 19.7 +/- 15.7 years). The following criteria were sought for inclusion: (1) to have active 15 electrodes for a Nucleus implant and six electrodes for a Medel implant at least and (2) to be cooperative for the tests. Ten healthy subjects with no hearing and balance problem were also included into the study as a control group. All implanted patients had auditory perception and linguistic development tests pre- and postoperatively, MLR and LLR testing postoperatively. Latencies and amplitudes of MLR and LLR were measured. Patients were divided into groups based on the onset of hearing loss (pre- and postlingual), auditory performance (good and moderate), and also duration of postimplantation period. Latency and amplitude of potentials were compared among the pre- and postlingual-CI patients and the control group. The same parameters were compared among the patients with good and moderate auditory performance scores and the control group. Finally, the parameters were analyzed in patients implanted within last 12 months and those implanted earlier. Latency of MLR and LLR was found to be shorter in postlingually deaf implantees compared to prelingually deaf implantees. Amplitudes of MLR and LLR tended to be higher in postlingually deaf implantees compared to prelingually deaf implantees. The better postoperative performance was associated with shorter latency and higher amplitude of MLR and LLR. MLR and LLR latencies were very close to each other in patients implanted within last 12 months and those implanted earlier. MLR and LLR amplitudes were higher in patients implanted earlier than 13 months. However, mentioned comparisons failed to yield statistical strength. Based on these results, it would be reasonable to conclude that postoperative MLR and LLR might give some clues about postoperative performance of CI users.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18560864     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0742-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  11 in total

1.  Intracranial auditory pathways: anatomy correlated with evoked response data.

Authors:  Lei Chen; Denise Morales; Katherine H Taber; L Anne Hayman
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

2.  Auditory late cortical response and speech recognition in Digisonic cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Jan Maurer; L Collet; H Pelster; E Truy; S Gallégo
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report.

Authors:  K Kaga; K Kodera; E Hirota; T Tsuzuku
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 3.325

4.  Cognitive evoked potentials to speech and tonal stimuli in children with implants.

Authors:  P R Kileny; A Boerst; T Zwolan
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 3.497

5.  Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response.

Authors:  Jill B Firszt; Ron D Chambers; Nina Kraus And; Ruth M Reeder
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  EABRs and surface potentials with a transcutaneous multielectrode cochlear implant.

Authors:  S Gallégo; E Truy; A Morgon; L Collet
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.494

7.  The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear-implant users.

Authors:  N Kraus; A G Micco; D B Koch; T McGee; T Carrell; A Sharma; R J Wiet; C Z Weingarten
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Categories of Auditory Performance.

Authors:  S Archbold; M E Lutman; D H Marshall
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

9.  A review of objective methods of evaluating auditory neural pathways.

Authors:  L J Hood
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  The relation between electric auditory brain stem and cognitive responses and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  P A Groenen; M Makhdoum; J L van den Brink; M H Stollman; A F Snik; P van den Broek
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 1.494

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.