The Relation between Electric Auditory Brain Stem and Cognitive Responses and Speech Perception in Cochlear Implant Users

Abstract

Groenen PÀP, Makhdouni M, van den Brink JL, Stoll man MHP, Snik AFM, vtin den Broek P, The relation between electric auditory brain stem and cognitive responses and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 1996; 116: 785-790. Electrically evoked brainstem responses (EABR) and event-related cortical potentials were recorded in seven postlingually deaf adults who were experienced users of a Nuclcus multichannel cochlear implant. The patients were divided into two subgroups: good performers and moderate performers, Poor EABR were found in two of the moderate performers. The latencies and amplitudes of the cortical N1-P2 complex in the good performers were within the same range as those of subjects with normal hearing, but were deviant in the group of moderate performers. This may indicate disturbed cochleotopical organization of the auditory cortex in the latter group. P300 measurements in the good performers showed normal latencies, whereas in the moderate performers they were prolonged. The results suggest that the outcomes of electrophysiological measurements to assess the integrity of a patient's auditory neural system on a brainstem and. a cortical level, are related to the patient's performance with the cochlear implant.

Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users

“…P3 is also observed for good CI performers, but not for poor CI performers (Kaga et al, 1991;Oviatt and Kileny, 1991;Micco et al, 1995;Groenen et al, 1996aGroenen et al, , 2001. Oviatt and Kileny (1991) observed that one poor CI performer could not detect stimulus change in an active oddball task, not showing the P3 to the deviant tone, while the other nine CI users could detect stimulus change, eliciting the P3.…”

On the Clinical Relevance of Mismatch Negativity: Results from Subjects with Normal Hearing and Cochlear Implant Users

“…Micco et al [23] found that the P300 was absent in one poor cochlear implant user, whereas in all the successful users the P300 was present. Groenen et al [22] found that good cochlear implant performers show normal P300 latencies, whereas in moderate performers, the P300 latencies were pro longed. In a case study, Kraus et al [26] stud ied MMNs elicited by a voiding contrast /da-/ta/ in a good and a poor implant user.…”

“…Event-related P300 mea surements using tone bursts in subjects with a cochlear implant were performed in several studies [19][20][21][22], In all studies, significant P300 peaks were found. P300 was measured by Micco et al [23] using speech in successful cochlear implant users.…”

Effects of auditory pathway anatomy and deafness characteristics? Part 2: On electrically evoked late auditory responses

“…The generators of N1 and P2 are centered in the primary and secondary auditory complex (belt and parabelt regions in the anatomical model of Hackett et al, 2001 and planum temporale according to Näätanen and Picton, 1987). ELARs have been used widely to investigate auditory function in cochlear implant users (e.g., Wable et al, 2000;Groenen et al, 1996;Pelizzone et al, 1989). Their latency is less variable than their amplitude (Eggermont, 1988) and may therefore provide a better tool to assess the auditory pathway integrity.…”