Rapid bilateral improvement in auditory cortex activity in postlingually deafened adults following cochlear implantation

Sandmann, Pascale; Plotz, Karsten; Hauthal, Nadine; Vos, Maarten De; Schönfeld, R; Debener, Stefan

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.029

Cited by 61 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This confirms previous research which reported differences in the sensory processing of auditory stimuli in CI users and NH listeners [Finke et al, 2015;Finke et al, 2016;Oates et al, 2002;Sandmann et al, 2009Sandmann et al, , 2010Sandmann et al, , 2015.…”

Section: Behavioral Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This confirmed previous observations of poorer auditory discrimination and speech intelligibility in CI users than in NH listeners [Finke et al, 2016;Sandmann et al, 2015]. The impaired performance with a CI can be explained by the limited spectral and temporal information transmitted by the CI and the spread of electrically evoked neuronal excitation in the cochlea [Drennan and Rubinstein, 2008].…”

Section: Behavioral Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…However, differences between CI users and NH listeners have not only been found in sensory, but also auditory-cognitive processing stages [Finke et al, 2015[Finke et al, , 2016Giraud and Lee, 2007;Giraud et al, 2001;Kral and Sharma, 2012;Kral et al, 2016;Kronenberger et al, 2013a;Lazard et al, 2010;Lyxell et al, 1996Lyxell et al, , 1998Pisoni, 2000;Pisoni et al, 2011;Rönnberg et al, 2013;Sandmann et al, 2012Sandmann et al, , 2015. Previous studies with NH listeners and hearing-impaired listeners have emphasized the role of WM and verbal abilities for speech intelligibility in adverse listening conditions [Akeroyd, 2008;Banks et al, 2015;Benard et al, 2014;Kronenberger et al, 2013a, b;Obleser and Kotz, 2011;Rönnberg et al, 2013].…”

Section: On the Relationship Between Central Auditorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This leads to maximal asymmetric auditory processing [Gordon et al, 2013;Kral et al, 2013]. With respect to speech intelligibility, it is likely that a number of different factors, such as the amount of surviving spiral ganglion cells and the degree of cortical plasticity in the central auditory system, contribute to this variability [Drennan and Rubinstein, 2008;Kral et al, 2016;Nadol et al, 1989;Sandmann et al, 2012Sandmann et al, , 2015. So far, studies which have compared the acoustic hearing (NH ear) and the electrical hearing (CI ear) in single-sided deaf CI users have aimed at a better understanding of the pitch perception and the match between cochlear electrode place and acoustic frequency in the cochlea [Schatzer et al, 2014;Vermeire et al, 2008].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Consequences of Stimulus Type on Higher-Order Processing in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single-sided deaf subjects with a cochlear implant (CI) provide the unique opportunity to compare central auditory processing of the electrical input (CI ear) and the acoustic input (normal-hearing, NH, ear) within the same individual. In these individuals, sensory processing differs between their two ears, while cognitive abilities are the same irrespectively of the sensory input. To better understand perceptual-cognitive factors modulating speech intelligibility with a CI, this electroencephalography study examined the central-auditory processing of words, the cognitive abilities, and the speech intelligibility in 10 postlingually single-sided deaf CI users. We found lower hit rates and prolonged response times for word classification during an oddball task for the CI ear when compared with the NH ear. Also, event-related potentials reflecting sensory (N1) and higher-order processing (N2/N4) were prolonged for word classification (targets versus nontargets) with the CI ear compared with the NH ear. Our results suggest that speech processing via the CI ear and the NH ear differs both at sensory (N1) and cognitive (N2/N4) processing stages, thereby affecting the behavioral performance for speech discrimination. These results provide objective evidence for cognition to be a key factor for speech perception under adverse listening conditions, such as the degraded speech signal provided from the CI.

show abstract

Section: Behavioral Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Behavioral Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: On the Relationship Between Central Auditorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Consequences of Stimulus Type on Higher-Order Processing in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence suggests that cross-modal plasticity in auditory brain regions following deafness may be an important factor in understanding and predicting how much benefit an individual might subsequently receive from a cochlear implant (CI; Lee et al, 2001;Giraud and Lee, 2007;Lee et al, 2007;Strelnikov et al, 2013;Sandmann et al, 2015;Song et al, 2015;Strelnikov et al, 2015). However, we currently have limited techniques for assessing the effects of CIs on neural plasticity, since testing with positron emission tomography (PET) is restricted (Johnsrude et al, 2002) due to cumulative effects of radionuclide exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical cross-modal plasticity following deafness measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy

Dewey

Hartley

2015

Hearing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence from functional neuroimaging studies suggests that the auditory cortex can become more responsive to visual and somatosensory stimulation following deafness, and that this occurs predominately in the right hemisphere. Extensive cross-modal plasticity in prospective cochlear implant recipients is correlated with poor speech outcomes following implantation, highlighting the potential impact of central auditory plasticity on subsequent aural rehabilitation. Conversely, the effects of hearing restoration with a cochlear implant on cortical plasticity are less well understood, since the use of most neuroimaging techniques in CI recipients is either unsafe or problematic due to the electromagnetic artefacts generated by CI stimulation. Additionally, techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) are confounded by acoustic noise produced by the scanner that will be perceived more by hearing than by deaf individuals. Subsequently it is conceivable that auditory responses to acoustic noise produced by the MR scanner may mask auditory cortical responses to non-auditory stimulation, and render inter-group comparisons less significant. Uniquely, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is a silent neuroimaging technique that is non-invasive and completely unaffected by the presence of a CI. Here, we used fNIRS to study temporal-lobe responses to auditory, visual and somatosensory stimuli in thirty profoundly-deaf participants and thirty normally-hearing controls. Compared with silence, acoustic noise stimuli elicited a significant group fNIRS response in the temporal region of normally-hearing individuals, which was not seen in profoundly-deaf participants. Visual motion elicited a larger group response within the right temporal lobe of profoundly-deaf participants, compared with normally-hearing controls. However, bilateral temporal lobe fNIRS activation to somatosensory stimulation was comparable in both groups. Using fNIRS these results confirm that auditory deprivation is associated with cross-modal plasticity of visual inputs to auditory cortex. Although we found no evidence for plasticity of somatosensory inputs, it is possible that our recordings may have included activation of somatosensory cortex that masked any group differences in auditory cortical responses due to the limited spatial resolution associated with fNIRS.

show abstract

Auditory and audio–visual processing in patients with cochlear, auditory brainstem, and auditory midbrain implants: An EEG study

Schierholz

Finke

Kral

et al. 2017

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is substantial variability in speech recognition ability across patients with cochlear implants (CIs), auditory brainstem implants (ABIs), and auditory midbrain implants (AMIs). To better understand how this variability is related to central processing differences, the current electroencephalography (EEG) study compared hearing abilities and auditory-cortex activation in patients with electrical stimulation at different sites of the auditory pathway. Three different groups of patients with auditory implants (Hannover Medical School; ABI: n = 6, CI: n = 6; AMI: n = 2) performed a speeded response task and a speech recognition test with auditory, visual, and audio-visual stimuli. Behavioral performance and cortical processing of auditory and audio-visual stimuli were compared between groups. ABI and AMI patients showed prolonged response times on auditory and audio-visual stimuli compared with NH listeners and CI patients. This was confirmed by prolonged N1 latencies and reduced N1 amplitudes in ABI and AMI patients. However, patients with central auditory implants showed a remarkable gain in performance when visual and auditory input was combined, in both speech and non-speech conditions, which was reflected by a strong visual modulation of auditory-cortex activation in these individuals. In sum, the results suggest that the behavioral improvement for audio-visual conditions in central auditory implant patients is based on enhanced audio-visual interactions in the auditory cortex. Their findings may provide important implications for the optimization of electrical stimulation and rehabilitation strategies in patients with central auditory prostheses. Hum Brain Mapp 38:2206-2225, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Rapid bilateral improvement in auditory cortex activity in postlingually deafened adults following cochlear implantation

Cited by 61 publications

References 76 publications

Consequences of Stimulus Type on Higher-Order Processing in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

Consequences of Stimulus Type on Higher-Order Processing in Single-Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users

Cortical cross-modal plasticity following deafness measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy

Auditory and audio–visual processing in patients with cochlear, auditory brainstem, and auditory midbrain implants: An EEG study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About