Literature DB >> 8909891

Maturation of human cortical auditory function: differences between normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants.

C W Ponton1, M Don, J J Eggermont, M D Waring, A Masuda.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We investigated maturation of cortical auditory function in normal-hearing children and in children who receive stimulation of their auditory system through a cochlear implant.
DESIGN: As a measure of cortical auditory function, auditory evoked responses (AERs) were recorded from normal-hearing children and adults as well as from children and adults fitted with a cochlear implant. Morphological and latency changes for evoked responses recorded at electrode Cz are reported.
RESULTS: For normal-hearing children, there is a gradual evolution of AER features that extends through adolescence, with P1 latency becoming adult-like in the late teens. Latency changes for P1 occur at the same rate for implanted children, but the overall maturation sequence is delayed. By extrapolation from the existing data, the age at which P1 latency becomes adult-like is delayed by approximately 5 yr for the implanted population. Other typical features of the AER, namely N1 and P2, are either delayed in developing or absent in the implanted children.
CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest both similarities and differences in cortical auditory maturation for normal-hearing and implanted children. For implanted children, the 5 yr delay for maturation of P1 latency roughly corresponds to the average 4.5 yr interval between the onset of deafness and the time of implantation. These findings suggest that during the period of deafness, maturation of cortical auditory function does not progress. However, some, if not all, maturational processes resume after stimulation is reintroduced.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8909891     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199610000-00009

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


  49 in total

1.  The influence of a sensitive period for auditory-visual integration in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Phillip M Gilley; Anu Sharma; Teresa V Mitchell; Michael F Dorman
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 2.  [Early hearing experience and sensitive developmental periods].

Authors:  A Kral
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 1.284

3.  Processing intensity at rapid rates: evidence from auditory evoked potentials in 9-11-year-old children.

Authors:  Elizabeth Dinces; Elyse Sussman
Journal:  Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-06-26       Impact factor: 1.675

4.  Development of auditory phase-locked activity for music sounds.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin; Laurel J Trainor; Larry E Roberts; Kristina C Backer; Lee M Miller
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Cortical maturation and behavioral outcomes in children with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Garrett Cardon; Kathryn Henion; Peter Roland
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.117

Review 6.  A sensitive period for cochlear implantation in deaf children.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Julia Campbell
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2011-10

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

Authors:  Suzanne C Purdy; Andrea S Kelly
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2016-02

8.  Auditory cortical responses in patients with cochlear implants.

Authors:  S Burdo; S Razza; F Di Berardino; G Tognola
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.124

Review 9.  Cortical development, plasticity and re-organization in children with cochlear implants.

Authors:  Anu Sharma; Amy A Nash; Michael Dorman
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2009-04-05       Impact factor: 2.288

Review 10.  Cochlear implantation in adults with prelingual deafness. Part II. Underlying constraints that affect audiological outcomes.

Authors:  Su Wooi Teoh; David B Pisoni; Richard T Miyamoto
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.