2005
DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200512190-00015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Atypical cortical responses underlie poor speech perception in children using cochlear implants

Abstract: Variability in speech perception abilities after years of cochlear implant use could reflect differences in central auditory processing of the electrical input provided. Cortical responses were measured in 23 experienced pediatric cochlear implant users who were 12.3+/-3.1 years of age at testing and had used their implants for 6.0+/-2.9 years. All had prelingual onset of deafness. An observer identified blind three types of cortical waveforms ranging from those similar to previous reports to more atypical res… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
26
1
9

Year Published

2006
2006
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
26
1
9
Order By: Relevance
“…In those studies, the time of device use and aspects related to the family and auditory rehabilitation are shown to have an impact on the benefits obtained through cochlear implants (24)(25)(26)(27) . Previous studies have described the correlation between the P1 component and an individual's performance in tests of auditory abilities, characterizing this component as a predictor of the development of speech auditory perception (16)(17)(18)28,29) . In this study, there was significant improvement in the individuals' auditory abilities with the use of cochlear implants, assessed through the IT-MAIS questionnaire (Table 3), but no significant correlation with the latency and amplitude of the P1 component (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In those studies, the time of device use and aspects related to the family and auditory rehabilitation are shown to have an impact on the benefits obtained through cochlear implants (24)(25)(26)(27) . Previous studies have described the correlation between the P1 component and an individual's performance in tests of auditory abilities, characterizing this component as a predictor of the development of speech auditory perception (16)(17)(18)28,29) . In this study, there was significant improvement in the individuals' auditory abilities with the use of cochlear implants, assessed through the IT-MAIS questionnaire (Table 3), but no significant correlation with the latency and amplitude of the P1 component (Table 4).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Children who receive cochlear implants after the sensitive period can present abnormal cortical auditory responses, even after many years of auditory stimulation (9,14,15) . Moreover, individuals with poorer speech perception present atypical records concerning these potentials (16)(17)(18) , thus reflecting abnormal or immature patterns in cortical activity (16) . Therefore, by studying the maturational process of the auditory system, with a focus on CAEP in children who received cochlear implants, it is possible to obtain important information that can aid in understanding the differences in the speech perception development observed among users of cochlear implants, and, consequently, reflect upon the process of referring individuals to this implantation, especially with regard to a child's age at the time of the procedure.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is imperative to note that, the N1-P2 CAEP is not without imperfections and limitations (most important is its inapplicability to infants), but it is a valuable component of the audiologist's toolbox. Its success in hearing threshold estimation lies in the use of appropriate test parameters, efficient procedure, and rigorous interpretation [12]. Hence, a judicious application of this advanced technological research tool is necessary for optimal evaluation of suspected cases of central auditory processing disorder and for objective evaluation of Cochlear implant candidacy and long term outcomes with cochlear implantation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Desde que Davis (1939) descreveu que a percepção do som pode alterar o eletroencefalograma do humano ouvinte, e que estas modificações podem ser extraídas deste registro, inúmeros pesquisadores têm utilizado os potenciais evocados auditivos (PEA) para descrever a resposta do sistema auditivo frente à estimulação (SHALLOP, 1993;GROENEN et al, 1996;EGGERMONT et al, 1997;KILENY et al, 1997;OKUSA et al, 1999;SHARMA et al, 2002;PANTEV et al, 2002;BEYNON et al, 2002;SHARMA et al, 2004;SINGH et al, 2004;GILLEY et al, 2005;SHARMA et al, 2005;KELLY et al, 2005;ROMAN et al, 2005;GORDON et al, 2005;BAUER et al, 2006;DORMAN et al, 2007;GIRAUD et al, 2007;MCNEILL et al, 2007;KRAL & EGGERMONT, 2007;GILLEY et al, 2008;BROWN et al, 2008;KURNAZ et al, 2009;MCNEILL et al, 2009;MARIAM et al, 2009;JOHNSON, 2009;FRIESEN et al, 2009;HANCOCK et al, 2010;KRAL & SHARMA, 2011;ZHANG et al, 2011;CASTAÑEDA-VILLA et al, 2012).…”
Section: Lista De Ilustraçõesunclassified
“…Dentro deste contexto, estudos foram realizados durante os primeiros anos de uso do IC, e demonstraram a correlação negativa da latência e amplitude dos PEAC com o desempenho da percepção da fala nas crianças usuárias de IC (BEYNON et al, 2002;MAURER et al, 2002;SHARMA et al, 2004;GORDON et al, 2005;KELLY et al, 2005;ROMAN et al, 2005;MCNEILL et al, 2007;KURNAZ et al, 2009;MCNEILL et al, 2009).…”
Section: Lista De Ilustraçõesunclassified