Development of cortical auditory responses to speech in noise in unilaterally deaf adults following cochlear implantation

Legris, E.; Galvin, John J.; Roux, Sylvie; Aoustin, Jean-Marie; Bakhos, D.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239487

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 89 publications

(135 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This highlights that the degraded electrical signal produced by the CI fails to encapsulate all the spectral information that the NHE provides. This is consistent with previous reported that N1-P2 amplitude were smaller in the SSD CI users when compared to normal hearing controls (Legris et al 2020). During free-field, early neural responses were larger in amplitude during FF-On compared to FF-Off, and likely reflects the effect of additional signal input from the CI facilitating lower-level detection reflected by the N1, and enhancing higher attentional-orientation processes reflected by the P2 (Wedekind et al 2018).…”

Section: Electrophysiological Results: Early Erps Enhanced During Nhesupporting

confidence: 92%

A Study of Event-Related Potentials during Monaural and Bilateral Hearing in Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

Voola

Nguyen

Wedekind

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveSingle sided deafness (SSD) is characterized by a profoundly deaf ear and normal hearing in the contralateral ear. A cochlear implant (CI) is the only method to restore functional hearing in a profoundly deaf ear. In a previous study, we identified that the cortical processing of a CI signal differs from the normal hearing ear (NHE) when directly compared using an auditory oddball paradigms consisting of pure tones. However, it is unclear how the electrical and acoustic signals from each ear are combined. This study aims to understand how the provision of the CI in combination with the NHE may improve SSD CI users’ ability to discriminate and evaluate auditory stimuli.DesignElectroencephalography (EEG) from ten SSD-CI participants (four participated in the previous pure-tone study) were recorded during a semantic acoustic oddball task, where they were required to discriminate between odd and even numbers. Stimuli were presented in four hearing conditions: directly through the CI, directly to the NHE, or in free field with the CI switched on and off. We examined task-performance (response time and accuracy) and measured N1, P2, N2N4 and P3b event-related brain potentials (ERPs) linked to the detection, discrimination, and evaluation of task relevant stimuli. Sound localization and speech in noise comprehension was also examined.ResultsIn direct presentation, task performance was superior during NHE compared to CI (Shorter and less varied RTs [∼720 vs. ∼842 ms], higher target accuracy [∼93 vs. ∼70%]) and early neural responses (N1 and P2) were enhanced for NHE suggesting greater signal saliency. However, the size of N2N4 and P3b target-standard effects did not differ significantly between NHE and CI. In free field, target accuracy was similarly high for both FF-on and -off (∼95%), with some evidence of CI interference during FF-on (more variable and slightly but significantly delayed RTs [∼737 vs. ∼709 ms]). Early neural responses and late effects were also greater during FF-on. Performance on sound localization and speech in noise comprehension (SCINNHEconfiguration only)was significantly greater during CI-on.ConclusionBoth behavioral and neural responses in the semantic oddball task were sensitive to CI in both direct and free-field presentations. Direct conditions revealed that participants could perform the task with the CI alone, although performance was sub-optimal and early neural responses was reduced when compared to the NHE. For free-field, the addition of the CI was associated with enhanced early and later neural responses but did not improved task performance. Enhanced neural responses show that the additional input from the CI is modulating relevant perceptual and cognitive processes, but the benefit of binaural hearing on behavior may not be realized in simple oddball tasks which can be adequately performed with the NHE. Future studies interested in binaural hearing should examine performance under noisy conditions and/or employ spatial cues to allow headroom for the measurement of binaural benefit.

show abstract

Section: Electrophysiological Results: Early Erps Enhanced During Nhesupporting

confidence: 92%

A Study of Event-Related Potentials during Monaural and Bilateral Hearing in Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

Voola

Nguyen

Wedekind

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, our results suggest that AHL-CI subjects learn to use binaural cues, most probably related to interaural level differences (Seeber et al, 2004; Távora-Vieira et al, 2015) in a head shadow-like effect (Wanrooij and Opstal, 2004), which become ineffective in the amplitude roving condition. These results provide further evidence that AHL-CI subjects can recover substantial spatial hearing abilities when binaural inputs are restored (Dorman et al, 2016; Legris et al, 2020; Litovsky et al, 2019; Polonenko et al, 2018; Zeitler et al, 2015), even though the electrical information is distorted and temporally offset (Zirn et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…These results provide further evidence that AHL-CI subjects can recover substantial spatial hearing abilities when binaural inputs are restored (Dorman et al, 2016;Legris et al, 2020;Litovsky et al, 2019;Polonenko et al, 2018;Zeitler et al, 2015), even though the electrical information is distorted and temporally offset (Zirn et al, 2015).…”

Section: Partial Restoration Of Spatial Hearing After CImentioning

confidence: 53%

“…In addition, some of the studies only investigated single cases (Firszt et al, 2013;Sharma and Glick, 2016), while others had highly variable data (Lee et al, 2020), thus precluding any robust conclusions. Most of these previous studies used EEG to study the neural changes (Lee et al, 2020;Legris et al, 2020Legris et al, , 2018Polonenko et al, 2018), which limits the spatial resolution of any findings. They were therefore unable precisely locate the functional reorganisation that takes place, as EEG relies on algorithms of source reconstruction, which lack accuracy.…”

Section: Brain Plasticity In the Primary Auditory Cortex In Deafness And Its Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cochlear implantation restores cortical processing for spatial hearing in asymmetric hearing loss

Karoui

Strelnikov

Payoux

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In asymmetric hearing loss (AHL), the normal pattern of contralateral hemispheric dominance for monaural stimulation is modified, with a shift towards the hemisphere ipsilateral to the better ear. The extent of this shift has been shown to relate to sound localisation deficits. In this study, we examined whether cochlear implantation to treat AHL can restore the normal functional pattern of auditory cortical activity and whether this relates to improved sound localisation. We recruited 10 subjects with a cochlear implant for AHL (AHL-CI) and 10 normally-hearing controls. The participants performed a voice/non-voice discrimination task with binaural and monaural presentation of the sounds, and the cortical activity was measured using positron emission tomography (PET) brain imaging with a H215O tracer. The auditory cortical activity was found to be lower in the AHL-CI participants for all of the conditions. A cortical asymmetry index was calculated and showed that a normal contralateral dominance was restored in the AHL-CI patients for the non-implanted ear, but not for the ear with the cochlear implant. It was found that the contralateral dominance for the non-implanted ear strongly correlated with sound localisation performance (rho = 0.8, p < 0.05). We conclude that the restoration of binaural mechanisms in AHL-CI subjects reverses the abnormal lateralisation pattern induced by the deafness, and that this leads to improved spatial hearing. Our results suggest that cochlear implantation fosters the rehabilitation of binaural excitatory/inhibitory cortical interactions, which could enable the reconstruction of the auditory spatial selectivity needed for sound localisation.

show abstract

“…Historically, SSD has been either left untreated or addressed with hearing aids, either on the ear or bone-anchored, that route stimuli from the poorer ear to the better ear (Peters et al 2015;Agterberg et al 2019). Cochlear implants (CIs) have been shown to alleviate tinnitus in the deaf ear (Mertens et al 2016;Levy et al 2020) and may also provide some perceptual benefits, including improved spatial awareness and sound localization abilities (Arndt et al 2017;Buss et al 2018;Firszt et al 2018;Pastore et al 2020), as well as improved speech perception in spatially separated interfering noise or talkers when the speech-to-noise ratio is better at the implanted than at the normal-hearing ear (Bernstein et al 2016;Dirks et al 2019;Williges et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness

Dirks

Oxenham

2021

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study tested whether speech perception and spatial acuity improved in people with single-sided deafness and a cochlear implant (SSD+CI) when the frequency allocation table (FAT) of the CI was adjusted to optimize frequency-dependent sensitivity to binaural disparities.Design: Nine SSD+CI listeners with at least 6 months of CI listening experience participated. Individual experimental FATs were created to best match the frequency-to-place mapping across ears using either sensitivity to binaural temporal-envelope disparities or estimated insertion depth. Spatial localization ability was measured, along with speech perception in spatially collocated or separated noise, first with the clinical FATs and then with the experimental FATs acutely and at 2-month intervals for 6 months. Listeners then returned to the clinical FATs and were retested acutely and after 1 month to control for long-term learning effects. Results:The experimental FAT varied between listeners, differing by an average of 0.15 octaves from the clinical FAT. No significant differences in performance were observed in any of the measures between the experimental FAT after 6 months and the clinical FAT one month later, and no clear relationship was found between the size of the frequencyallocation shift and perceptual changes. Conclusion:Adjusting the FAT to optimize sensitivity to interaural temporal-envelope disparities did not improve localization or speech perception. The clinical frequency-to-place alignment may already be sufficient, given the inherently poor spectral resolution of CIs. Alternatively, other factors, such as temporal misalignment between the two ears, may need to be addressed before any benefits of spectral alignment can be observed.

show abstract

Development of cortical auditory responses to speech in noise in unilaterally deaf adults following cochlear implantation

Cited by 6 publications

References 89 publications

A Study of Event-Related Potentials during Monaural and Bilateral Hearing in Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

A Study of Event-Related Potentials during Monaural and Bilateral Hearing in Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

Cochlear implantation restores cortical processing for spatial hearing in asymmetric hearing loss

No Benefit of Deriving Cochlear-Implant Maps From Binaural Temporal-Envelope Sensitivity for Speech Perception or Spatial Hearing Under Single-Sided Deafness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About