Takwa A Gabr1, Mohammad R Hassaan2. 1. Associate Professor of Audiology, Audiology Unit, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. Electronic address: takwagabr@gmail.com. 2. Associate Professor of Audiology, Audiology Unit, ENT Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Cochlear implants (CIs) can be used effectively in the profoundly impaired children individuals. OBJECTIVES: This work was designed to assess speech processing at brainstem and cortical level in children fitted with CIs to investigate the possible influence of brainstem processing of speech on the cortical processing in those children. METHOD: Twenty children fitted with CIs underwent aided sound-field audiologic evaluation, speech evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (S-CAEPs) and according to the results, children were classified into two groups: group I with good cortical response and group II with poor cortical response. This was followed by speech evoked ABR (S-ABR) recoding. RESULTS: P1 component of CAEPs was recorded in all children while other component showed variable results. S-ABR was recorded in all children even those with poor S-CAEPs response who showed delayed D, E, F and O latencies. However, S-ABR amplitudes did not show any significant difference between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Children fitted with CI showed immediate cortical activation following device programming and this activity depends on the age of implantation as well as the child's age. S-ABR provides a new clinical tool that showed an important role of brainstem in complex sound processing that contribute to cortical processing.
UNLABELLED: Cochlear implants (CIs) can be used effectively in the profoundly impaired children individuals. OBJECTIVES: This work was designed to assess speech processing at brainstem and cortical level in children fitted with CIs to investigate the possible influence of brainstem processing of speech on the cortical processing in those children. METHOD: Twenty children fitted with CIs underwent aided sound-field audiologic evaluation, speech evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (S-CAEPs) and according to the results, children were classified into two groups: group I with good cortical response and group II with poor cortical response. This was followed by speech evoked ABR (S-ABR) recoding. RESULTS: P1 component of CAEPs was recorded in all children while other component showed variable results. S-ABR was recorded in all children even those with poor S-CAEPs response who showed delayed D, E, F and O latencies. However, S-ABR amplitudes did not show any significant difference between both groups. CONCLUSIONS:Children fitted with CI showed immediate cortical activation following device programming and this activity depends on the age of implantation as well as the child's age. S-ABR provides a new clinical tool that showed an important role of brainstem in complex sound processing that contribute to cortical processing.