Can event-related potentials be evoked by extra-cochlear stimulation and used for selection purposes in cochlear implantation?

Makhdoum, M.; Hinderink, J.B.; Snik, A.F.M.; Groenen, P.A.P.; Broek, Paul van den

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2273.1998.00168.x

Cited by 10 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the heterogeneity, 60% of the studies in this review ( Table 3 ) compare CI users with normal-hearing people, and their data show increased P300 latencies in CI users (E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E10, E11, E13, E16, E17, E18, and E20). 23 24 25 26 27 32 33 35 38 39 40 41 On the other hand, some of them found similar P300 latency results between CI users and normal-hearing individuals, even after a long period of auditory deprivation (E12, E14, and E15). 34 36 37…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The P300 Auditory Evoked Potential in Cochlear Implant Users: A Scoping Review

Amaral

Zamberlan-Amorim

Mendes

et al. 2022

Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The P300 auditory evoked potential is a long-latency cortical potential evoked with auditory stimulation, which provides information on neural mechanisms underlying the central auditory processing. Objectives To identify and gather scientific evidence regarding the P300 in adult cochlear implant (CI) users. Data Synthesis A total of 87 articles, 20 of which were selected for this study, were identified and exported to the Rayyan search software. Those 20 articles did not propose a homogeneous methodology, which made comparison more difficult. Most articles (60%) in this review compare CI users with typical hearing people, showing prolonged P300 latency in CI users. Among the studies, 35% show that CI users present a smaller P300 amplitude. Another variable is the influence of the kind of stimulus used to elicit P300, which was prolonged in 30% of the studies that used pure tone stimuli, 10% of the studies that used pure tone and speech stimuli, and 60% of the studies that used speech stimuli. Conclusion This review has contributed with evidence that shows the importance of applying a controlled P300 protocol to diagnose and monitor CI users. Regardless of the stimuli used to elicit P300, we noticed a pattern in the increase in latency and decrease in amplitude in CI users. The user's experience with the CI speech processor over time and the speech test results seem to be related to the P300 latency and amplitude measurements.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The P300 Auditory Evoked Potential in Cochlear Implant Users: A Scoping Review

Amaral

Zamberlan-Amorim

Mendes

et al. 2022

Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of small-scale cross-sectional studies have also examined various cortical auditory evoked potentials (N1, P2, P300) and their relationship to performance following cochlear implantation. These demonstrate a relationship between the amplitudes of cortical evoked potentials and the speech perception performance in CI users (Micco et al, 1995;Groenen et al, 1996;Makhdoum et al, 1998;Groenen et al, 2001). However, these studies examined cortical responses without background noise, which may utilize only a subset of the cortical mechanisms needed in noise (in support of this point, see Wong et al, 2008;Du et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neural correlates of individual differences in speech-in-noise performance in a large cohort of cochlear implant users

Berger

Gander

Kim

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesUnderstanding speech in noise (SiN) is a complex task that recruits multiple cortical subsystems. Individuals vary in their ability to understand SiN. This cannot be explained by simple peripheral hearing profiles, but recent work by our group (Kim et al., 2021, Neuroimage) highlighted central neural factors underlying the variance in SiN ability in normal hearing (NH) subjects. The current study examined neural predictors of speech-in-noise ability in a large cohort of cochlear-implant (CI) users, with the long-term goal of developing a simple electrophysiological correlate that could be implemented in clinics.DesignWe recorded electroencephalography (EEG) in 114 post-lingually deafened CI users while they completed the California Consonant Test (CCT): a word-in-noise task. In many subjects, data were also collected on two other commonly used clinical measures of speech perception: a word-in-quiet task (Consonant-Nucleus-Consonant [CNC]) word and a sentence-in-noise task (AzBio sentences). Neural activity was assessed at a single vertex electrode (Cz), to maximize generalizability to clinical situations. The N1-P2 complex of event-related potentials (ERPs) at this location were included in multiple linear regression analyses, along with several other demographic and hearing factors as predictors of speech in noise performance.ResultsIn general, there was a good agreement between the scores on the three speech perception tasks. ERP amplitudes did not predict AzBio performance which was predicted by the duration of device use, low-frequency hearing thresholds, and age. However, ERP amplitudes were strong predictors for performance for both word recognition tasks: the CCT (which was conducted simultaneously with EEG recording), and the CNC (conducted offline). These correlations held even after accounting for known predictors of performance including residual low-frequency hearing thresholds. In CI-users, better performance was predicted by an increased cortical response to the target word, in contrast to previous reports in normal-hearing subjects in whom speech perception ability was accounted for by the ability to suppress noise.ConclusionsThese data indicate a neurophysiological correlate of speech-in-noise performance that can be relatively easily captured within the clinic, thereby revealing a richer profile of an individual’s hearing performance than shown by psychoacoustic measures alone. These results also highlight important differences between sentence and word recognition measures of performance and suggest that individual differences in these measures may be underwritten by different mechanisms. Finally, the contrast with prior reports of NH listeners in the same task suggests CI-users performance may be explained by a different weighting of neural processes than NH listeners.

show abstract

“…Tab.1 HSM-Satztest-Ergebnisse und Latenzzeiten der SAEP der mit einem CI versorgten Patienten.Da die SAEP mit dem Sprachverständnis korrelieren, scheinen sie sich zur postoperativen Evaluation des Erfolgs einer CI-Versorgung zu eignen[15].Ein zusätzlicher Gewinn durch die Variation der Pausendauer ist, wie unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, nicht zu erwarten.Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie sprechen für eine frühzeitige CIVersorgung auch bei postlingual Ertaubten, da sonst in vielen Fällen mit einem schlechteren Sprachverstehen gerechnet werden muss.Literatur1 Helms J, Müller J, Schön F, Brill S. Cochlea-Implantationen: Ergebnisse und Kosten, eine Übersicht. Laryngo-Rhino-Otol 2003; 82: 821 ± 825 2 Eggermont JJ, Ponton CW, Don M, Waring MD, Kwong B. Maturational delays in cortical evoked potentials in cochlear implant users.…”

unclassified