Literature DB >> 30169463

Residual Cochlear Function in Adults and Children Receiving Cochlear Implants: Correlations With Speech Perception Outcomes.

Tatyana Elizabeth Fontenot1, Christopher Kenneth Giardina1,2, Margaret Dillon1, Meredith A Rooth1, Holly F Teagle1, Lisa R Park1, Kevin David Brown1, Oliver F Adunka3, Craig A Buchman4, Harold C Pillsbury1, Douglas C Fitzpatrick1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Variability in speech perception outcomes with cochlear implants remains largely unexplained. Recently, electrocochleography, or measurements of cochlear potentials in response to sound, has been used to assess residual cochlear function at the time of implantation. Our objective was to characterize the potentials recorded preimplantation in subjects of all ages, and evaluate the relationship between the responses, including a subjective estimate of neural activity, and speech perception outcomes.
DESIGN: Electrocochleography was recorded in a prospective cohort of 284 candidates for cochlear implant at University of North Carolina (10 months to 88 years of ages). Measurement of residual cochlear function called the "total response" (TR), which is the sum of magnitudes of spectral components in response to tones of different stimulus frequencies, was obtained for each subject. The TR was then related to results on age-appropriate monosyllabic word score tests presented in quiet. In addition to the TR, the electrocochleography results were also assessed for neural activity in the forms of the compound action potential and auditory nerve neurophonic.
RESULTS: The TR magnitude ranged from a barely detectable response of about 0.02 µV to more than 100 µV. In adults (18 to 79 years old), the TR accounted for 46% of variability in speech perception outcome by linear regression (r = 0.46; p < 0.001). In children between 6 and 17 years old, the variability accounted for was 36% (p < 0.001). In younger children, the TR accounted for less of the variability, 15% (p = 0.012). Subjects over 80 years old tended to perform worse for a given TR than younger adults at the 6-month testing interval. The subjectively assessed neural activity did not increase the information compared with the TR alone, which is primarily composed of the cochlear microphonic produced by hair cells.
CONCLUSIONS: The status of the auditory periphery, particularly of hair cells rather than neural activity, accounts for a large fraction of variability in speech perception outcomes in adults and older children. In younger children, the relationship is weaker, and the elderly differ from other adults. This simple measurement can be applied with high throughput so that peripheral status can be assessed to help manage patient expectations, create individually-tailored treatment plans, and identify subjects performing below expectations based on residual cochlear function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30169463      PMCID: PMC6533622          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000630

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  94 in total

1.  Residual speech recognition and cochlear implant performance: effects of implantation criteria.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; W S Parkinson; R S Tyler; B J Gantz
Journal:  Am J Otol       Date:  1999-07

2.  Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing.

Authors:  P J Blamey; J Z Sarant; L E Paatsch; J G Barry; C P Bow; R J Wales; M Wright; C Psarros; K Rattigan; R Tooher
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Revised CNC lists for auditory tests.

Authors:  G E PETERSON; I LEHISTE
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1962-02

4.  Speech perception in children using cochlear implants: prediction of long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Richard C Dowell; Shani J Dettman; Peter J Blamey; Elizabeth J Barker; Graeme M Clark
Journal:  Cochlear Implants Int       Date:  2002-03

5.  Does brain activity at rest reflect adaptive strategies? Evidence from speech processing after cochlear implantation.

Authors:  K Strelnikov; J Rouger; J-F Demonet; S Lagleyre; B Fraysse; O Deguine; P Barone
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2009-10-05       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Auditory-nerve responses to varied inter-phase gap and phase duration of the electric pulse stimulus as predictors for neuronal degeneration.

Authors:  Dyan Ramekers; Huib Versnel; Stefan B Strahl; Emma M Smeets; Sjaak F L Klis; Wilko Grolman
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2014-01-28

7.  Assessing the Electrode-Neuron Interface with the Electrically Evoked Compound Action Potential, Electrode Position, and Behavioral Thresholds.

Authors:  Lindsay DeVries; Rachel Scheperle; Julie Arenberg Bierer
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-29

8.  The Compound Action Potential in Subjects Receiving a Cochlear Implant.

Authors:  William C Scott; Christopher K Giardina; Andrew K Pappa; Tatyana E Fontenot; Meredith L Anderson; Margaret T Dillon; Kevin D Brown; Harold C Pillsbury; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.311

9.  Cochlear implantation in children with postlingual hearing loss.

Authors:  Faisal I Ahmad; Christine E Demason; Holly F B Teagle; Lillian Henderson; Oliver F Adunka; Craig A Buchman
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 3.325

10.  Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after "temporary" noise-induced hearing loss.

Authors:  Sharon G Kujawa; M Charles Liberman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-11-11       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  21 in total

1.  Hair cell and neural contributions to the cochlear summating potential.

Authors:  Andrew K Pappa; Kendall A Hutson; William C Scott; J David Wilson; Kevin E Fox; Maheer M Masood; Christopher K Giardina; Stephen H Pulver; Gilberto D Grana; Charles Askew; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Validating a New Tablet-based Tool in the Determination of Cochlear Implant Angular Insertion Depth.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Margaret T Dillon; Emily Buss; Harold C Pillsbury; Kevin D Brown; Brendan P O'Connell
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 2.311

3.  Cochlear implants and other inner ear prostheses: today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Lina Aj Reiss
Journal:  Curr Opin Physiol       Date:  2020-08-14

4.  Relationship Between Intraoperative Electrocochleography and Hearing Preservation.

Authors:  Thomas Lenarz; Andreas Buechner; Bruce Gantz; Marlan Hansen; Viral D Tejani; Robert Labadie; Brendan O'Connell; Craig Alan Buchman; Carla V Valenzuela; Oliver F Adunka; Michael S Harris; William J Riggs; Douglas Fitzpatrick; Kanthaiah Koka
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.311

5.  External Validation of Cochlear Implant Screening Tools Demonstrates Modest Generalizability.

Authors:  David S Lee; Jacques A Herzog; Amit Walia; Jill B Firszt; Kevin Y Zhan; Nedim Durakovic; Cameron C Wick; Craig A Buchman; Matthew A Shew
Journal:  Otol Neurotol       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 2.619

6.  Impact of stimulus frequency and recording electrode on electrocochleography in Hybrid cochlear implant users.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Rachael L Carroll; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-10-18       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  Light sheet microscopy of the gerbil cochlea.

Authors:  Kendall A Hutson; Stephen H Pulver; Pablo Ariel; Caroline Naso; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Comp Neurol       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.215

8.  Residual Hair Cell Responses in Electric-Acoustic Stimulation Cochlear Implant Users with Complete Loss of Acoustic Hearing After Implantation.

Authors:  Viral D Tejani; Jeong-Seo Kim; Jacob J Oleson; Paul J Abbas; Carolyn J Brown; Marlan R Hansen; Bruce J Gantz
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-04

9.  Intracochlear Electrocochleography and Speech Perception Scores in Cochlear Implant Recipients.

Authors:  Carla V Valenzuela; Jeffery T Lichtenhan; Shannon M Lefler; Kanthaiah Koka; Craig A Buchman; Amanda J Ortmann
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.970

10.  Relationship Between Electrocochleography, Angular Insertion Depth, and Cochlear Implant Speech Perception Outcomes.

Authors:  Michael W Canfarotta; Brendan P O'Connell; Christopher K Giardina; Emily Buss; Kevin D Brown; Margaret T Dillon; Meredith A Rooth; Harold C Pillsbury; Craig A Buchman; Oliver F Adunka; Douglas C Fitzpatrick
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2021 July/Aug       Impact factor: 3.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.