Literature DB >> 27587923

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

Suzanne C Purdy1, Andrea S Kelly1.   

Abstract

Speech perception varies widely across cochlear implant (CI) users and typically improves over time after implantation. There is also some evidence for improved auditory evoked potentials (shorter latencies, larger amplitudes) after implantation but few longitudinal studies have examined the relationship between behavioral and evoked potential measures after implantation in postlingually deaf adults. The relationship between speech perception and auditory evoked potentials was investigated in newly implanted cochlear implant users from the day of implant activation to 9 months postimplantation, on five occasions, in 10 adults age 27 to 57 years who had been bilaterally profoundly deaf for 1 to 30 years prior to receiving a unilateral CI24 cochlear implant. Changes over time in middle latency response (MLR), mismatch negativity, and obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials and word and sentence speech perception scores were examined. Speech perception improved significantly over the 9-month period. MLRs varied and showed no consistent change over time. Three participants aged in their 50s had absent MLRs. The pattern of change in N1 amplitudes over the five visits varied across participants. P2 area increased significantly for 1,000- and 4,000-Hz tones but not for 250 Hz. The greatest change in P2 area occurred after 6 months of implant experience. Although there was a trend for mismatch negativity peak latency to reduce and width to increase after 3 months of implant experience, there was considerable variability and these changes were not significant. Only 60% of participants had a detectable mismatch initially; this increased to 100% at 9 months. The continued change in P2 area over the period evaluated, with a trend for greater change for right hemisphere recordings, is consistent with the pattern of incremental change in speech perception scores over time. MLR, N1, and mismatch negativity changes were inconsistent and hence P2 may be a more robust measure of auditory plasticity in adult implant recipients. P2 was still improving at 9 months postimplantation. Future studies should explore longitudinal changes over a longer period.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cochlear implant; N1; P2; cortical auditory evoked potential; middle latency response; mismatch negativity; speech perception

Year:  2016        PMID: 27587923      PMCID: PMC4910565          DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Hear        ISSN: 0734-0451


  47 in total

1.  Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  P A Groenen; A J Beynon; A F Snik; P van den Broek
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  2001

2.  Intra- and interindividual correlations between auditory evoked potentials and speech perception in cochlear implant users.

Authors:  M J Makhdoum; P A Groenen; A F Snik; P van den Broek
Journal:  Scand Audiol       Date:  1998

3.  Factors affecting the recordability of auditory evoked response component Pb (P1).

Authors:  M D Nelson; J W Hall; G P Jacobson
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.664

4.  The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol.

Authors:  M Valente; D Van Vliet
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1997-03

5.  Of kittens and kids: altered cortical maturation following profound deafness and cochlear implant use.

Authors:  C W Ponton; J J Eggermont
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.854

6.  Rapid bilateral improvement in auditory cortex activity in postlingually deafened adults following cochlear implantation.

Authors:  Pascale Sandmann; Karsten Plotz; Nadine Hauthal; Maarten de Vos; Rüdiger Schönfeld; Stefan Debener
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants.

Authors:  B J Gantz; G G Woodworth; J F Knutson; P J Abbas; R S Tyler
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 1.547

Review 8.  Auditory evoked potentials as measures of plasticity in humans.

Authors:  S C Purdy; A S Kelly; P R Thorne
Journal:  Audiol Neurootol       Date:  2001 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.854

9.  Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant.

Authors:  R F Gray; S J Quinn; I Court; Z Vanat; D M Baguley
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl       Date:  1995-09

10.  Auditory training alters the physiological detection of stimulus-specific cues in humans.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Antoine J Shahin; Terence Picton; Bernhard Ross
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-11-22       Impact factor: 3.708

View more
  3 in total

1.  Normative Data for Cortical Evoked Response Audiometry of a Heterogeneous Indian Population and Its Comparison with Behavioral Audiometry.

Authors:  Priyanka Misale; Anjali Lepcha; Philip Thomas; Swapna Sebastian; Tunny Sebastian
Journal:  Ann Indian Acad Neurol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 1.383

2.  Changes in Speech-Related Brain Activity During Adaptation to Electro-Acoustic Hearing.

Authors:  Tobias Balkenhol; Elisabeth Wallhäusser-Franke; Nicole Rotter; Jérôme J Servais
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 4.003

3.  Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness.

Authors:  Andre Wedekind; Gunesh Rajan; Bram Van Dun; Dayse Távora-Vieira
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.