Cochlear implants and positron emission tomography

Aggarwal, R.; Green, K M J

doi:10.1017/s0022215112002241

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 22 studies, no neurocognitive measure was present ( Meyer et al, 2000 ; Vitevitch et al, 2000 ; Wable et al, 2000 ; Giraud and Truy, 2002 ; Lachs et al, 2002 ; Lonka et al, 2004 ; Kelly et al, 2005 ; Debener et al, 2008 ; Tremblay et al, 2010 ; Winn et al, 2013 ; Moberly et al, 2014 ; Turgeon et al, 2014 ; Ramos-Miguel et al, 2015 ; Collett et al, 2016 ; Purdy and Kelly, 2016 ; Sterling Wilkinson Sheffield et al, 2016 ; Harris et al, 2017 ; Alemi and Lehmann, 2019 ; Balkenhol et al, 2020 ; Crowson et al, 2020 ; Naples and Berryhill McCarty, 2020 ; Lee et al, 2021 ). Fifteen reviews were excluded as they did not include an original study ( Wilson et al, 2003 , 2011 ; Mitchell and Maslin, 2007 ; Peterson et al, 2010 ; Aggarwal and Green, 2012 ; Anderson and Kraus, 2013 ; Lazard et al, 2013 ; Anderson and Jenkins, 2015 ; Baskent et al, 2016 ; Pisoni et al, 2016 , 2017 ; Wallace, 2017 ; Oxenham, 2018 ; Bortfeld, 2019 ; Glennon et al, 2020 ). Two articles were excluded because they focused on a reversed hypothesis (the influence of CI on cognition) ( Anderson and Jenkins, 2015 ; Nagels et al, 2019 ) and nine articles were excluded because no abstract and/or full-text paper was available.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes—A scoping review

Beckers

Tromp²,

Philips³

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCochlear implants (CIs) are considered an effective treatment for severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss. However, speech perception outcomes are highly variable among adult CI recipients. Top-down neurocognitive factors have been hypothesized to contribute to this variation that is currently only partly explained by biological and audiological factors. Studies investigating this, use varying methods and observe varying outcomes, and their relevance has yet to be evaluated in a review. Gathering and structuring this evidence in this scoping review provides a clear overview of where this research line currently stands, with the aim of guiding future research.ObjectiveTo understand to which extent different neurocognitive factors influence speech perception in adult CI users with a postlingual onset of hearing loss, by systematically reviewing the literature.MethodsA systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies investigating the influence of one or more neurocognitive factors on speech perception post-implantation were included. Word and sentence perception in quiet and noise were included as speech perception outcome metrics and six key neurocognitive domains, as defined by the DSM-5, were covered during the literature search (Protocol in open science registries: 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W of searches in June 2020, April 2022).ResultsFrom 5,668 retrieved articles, 54 articles were included and grouped into three categories using different measures to relate to speech perception outcomes: (1) Nineteen studies investigating brain activation, (2) Thirty-one investigating performance on cognitive tests, and (3) Eighteen investigating linguistic skills.ConclusionThe use of cognitive functions, recruiting the frontal cortex, the use of visual cues, recruiting the occipital cortex, and the temporal cortex still available for language processing, are beneficial for adult CI users. Cognitive assessments indicate that performance on non-verbal intelligence tasks positively correlated with speech perception outcomes. Performance on auditory or visual working memory, learning, memory and vocabulary tasks were unrelated to speech perception outcomes and performance on the Stroop task not to word perception in quiet. However, there are still many uncertainties regarding the explanation of inconsistent results between papers and more comprehensive studies are needed e.g., including different assessment times, or combining neuroimaging and behavioral measures.Systematic review registrationhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3G7W.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes—A scoping review

Beckers

Tromp²,

Philips³

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies using electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERPs) in particular have shown differences in cortical speech processing between CI users and normal-hearing (NH) listeners, both at initial sensory and at later higher-level cognitive processing stages (e.g., Hahne et al, 2012;Finke et al, 2016a). In particular, CI users have shown smaller amplitudes of N1 ERPs to speech sounds, indicating smaller assembly or reduced synchronization of activated neurons in the auditory cortex of CI users when compared with NH listeners (Groenen et al, 2001;Aggarwal and Green, 2012). Regarding the later cognitive processing stages, ERPs in response to semantic anomalies (N400) and syntactic violations (P600) have been rarely examined in CI users (Hahne et al, 2012;Henkin et al, 2014;Kallioinen et al, 2016;Vavatzanidis et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Brain-Perfusion SPECT and EEG Measurements Suggest Distinct Strategies for Speech Comprehension in CI Users With Higher and Lower Performance

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implantation constitutes a successful therapy of inner ear deafness, with the majority of patients showing good outcomes. There is, however, still some unexplained variability in outcomes with a number of cochlear-implant (CI) users, showing major limitations in speech comprehension. The current study used a multimodal diagnostic approach combining single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and electroencephalography (EEG) to examine the mechanisms underlying speech processing in postlingually deafened CI users (N = 21). In one session, the participants performed a speech discrimination task, during which a 96channel EEG was recorded and the perfusions marker 99m Tc-HMPAO was injected intravenously. The SPECT scan was acquired 1.5 h after injection to measure the cortical activity during the speech task. The second session included a SPECT scan after injection without stimulation at rest. Analysis of EEG and SPECT data showed N400 and P600 event-related potentials (ERPs) particularly evoked by semantic violations in the sentences, and enhanced perfusion in a temporo-frontal network during task compared to rest, involving the auditory cortex bilaterally and Broca's area. Moreover, higher performance in testing for word recognition and verbal intelligence strongly correlated to the activation in this network during the speech task. However, comparing CI users with lower and higher speech intelligibility [median split with cutoff + 7.6 dB signalto-noise ratio (SNR) in the Göttinger sentence test] revealed for CI users with higher performance additional activations of parietal and occipital regions and for those with lower performance stronger activation of superior frontal areas. Furthermore, SPECT activity was tightly coupled with EEG and cognitive abilities, as indicated by correlations between (1) cortical activation and the amplitudes in EEG, N400 (temporal and occipital

show abstract

“…Previous investigators employed PET scans to examine various auditory cognitive processes in the CI population (Limb et al, 2010; Naito et al, 2000; Wong et al, 1999), and several dedicated reports have even been published for reviewing the use of PET scans in language processing research on CI recipients (Aggarwal and Green, 2012; Giraud et al, 2001). Several factors account for the popularity of this neuroimaging modality for use with CIs among the scientific community.…”

Section: Neuroimaging Options In Cochlear Implant Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy for neuroimaging in cochlear implant recipients

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional neuroimaging can provide insight into the neurobiological factors that contribute to the variations in individual hearing outcomes following cochlear implantation. To date, measuring neural activity within the auditory cortex of cochlear implant (CI) recipients has been challenging, primarily because the use of traditional neuroimaging techniques is limited in people with CIs. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is an emerging technology that offers benefits in this population because it is non-invasive, compatible with CI devices, and not subject to electrical artifacts. However, there are important considerations to be made when using fNIRS to maximize the signal to noise ratio and to best identify meaningful cortical responses. This review considers these issues, the current data, and future directions for using fNIRS as a clinical application in individuals with CIs.

show abstract

Cochlear implants and positron emission tomography

Abstract: Only when the underlying mechanisms responsible for speech processing in implantees are understood can appropriate rehabilitation for those with poor speech perception be provided and outcomes improved.

Cited by 5 publications

References 31 publications

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes—A scoping review

Exploring neurocognitive factors and brain activation in adult cochlear implant recipients associated with speech perception outcomes—A scoping review

Combined Brain-Perfusion SPECT and EEG Measurements Suggest Distinct Strategies for Speech Comprehension in CI Users With Higher and Lower Performance

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy for neuroimaging in cochlear implant recipients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About