P3 Cognitive Potential in Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

Introduction The P3 cognitive evoked potential is recorded when a subject correctly identifies, evaluates and processes two different auditory stimuli. Objective to evaluate the latency and amplitude of the P3 evoked potential in 26 cochlear implant users with post-lingual deafness with good or poor speech recognition scores as compared with normal hearing subjects matched for age and educational level. Methods In this prospective cohort study, auditory cortical responses were recorded from 26 post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users (19 with good and 7 with poor speech recognition scores) and 26 control subjects. Results There was a significant difference in the P3 latency between cochlear implant users with poor speech recognition scores (G-) and their control group (CG) ( p = 0.04), and between G- and cochlear implant users with good speech discrimination (G+) ( p = 0.01). We found no significant difference in the P3 latency between the CG and G+. In this study, all G- patients had deafness due to meningitis, which suggests that higher auditory function was impaired too. Conclusion Post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users in the G- group had prolonged P3 latencies as compared with the CG and the cochlear implant users in the G+ group. The amplitudes were similar between patients and controls. All G- subjects were deaf due to meningitis. These findings suggest that meningitis may have deleterious effects not only on the peripheral auditory system but on the central auditory processing as well.

The P300 Auditory Event-Related Potential May Predict Segregation of Competing Speech by Bimodal Cochlear Implant Listeners

“…Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kubo et al, 2001;Beynon et al, 2005;Obuchi et al, 2012;Soshi et al, 2014;Grasel et al, 2018;Han et al, 2020), P300 amplitudes were significantly larger and latencies were significantly shorter for the NH group than for the CI group. For the present bimodal CI listeners, mean P300 amplitude and/or latency values were comparable to those observed in previous studies with CI listeners (e.g., Iwaki et al, 2004;Sasaki et al, 2009;Grasel et al, 2018;Abrahamse et al, 2021;Calderaro et al, 2020;Van Yper et al, 2020). P300 responses were elicited in all CI participants, consistent with Obuchi et al (2012).…”

“…Also, previous studies have shown more robust P300 responses with bimodal than with CI-only listening (e.g., Iwaki et al, 2004;Sasaki et al, 2009). Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Beynon et al, 2005;Obuchi et al, 2012;Grasel et al, 2018), we expected greater P300 amplitudes and shorter P300 latencies in NH than in CI listeners. Given the great variability in speech performance among CI users (e.g., Stickney et al, 2004;Cullington and Zeng, 2008) and given that P300 is sensitive to auditory task difficulty (Parasuraman and Beatty, 1980;Polich, 1987;Causse et al, 2016), we expected that P300 responses would be related to masked speech recognition, especially for the more difficult segregation of competing speech by CI users.…”

“…Segregation of competing speech has been shown to involve cognitive processes (e.g., Francis, 2010). Some CI studies have compared P300 responses to standard clinical measures such as word recognition in quiet (e.g., Kileny et al, 1997;Groenen et al, 2001;Grasel et al, 2018;Abrahamse et al, 2021;Amaral et al, 2021). Others have compared P300 responses to phoneme recognition in quiet (e.g., Groenen et al, 2001;Beynon et al, 2002) or to speech recognition in steady noise (e.g., Iwaki et al, 2004).…”

Clinical implications of intraoperative eABRs to the Evo®-CI electrode array recipients

“…It is well known that meningitis impacts the cochlea and the central nervous system despite complete electrode insertion. 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 …”

Is there a change in P300 evoked potential after 6 months in cochlear implant users?

“…Regarding Cochlear Implant (CI) users, P300 may be useful to assess cognitive aspects, 2 , 3 , 4 predict the success of the CI surgery, 5 and elucidate post-CI surgery changes in auditory perception. 6 …”