Download PDF
Semin Hear 2016; 37(01): 062-073
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1570329
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Change in Speech Perception and Auditory Evoked Potentials over Time after Unilateral Cochlear Implantation in Postlingually Deaf Adults

Suzanne C. Purdy
1   School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
,
Andrea S. Kelly
1   School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Speech perception varies widely across cochlear implant (CI) users and typically improves over time after implantation. There is also some evidence for improved auditory evoked potentials (shorter latencies, larger amplitudes) after implantation but few longitudinal studies have examined the relationship between behavioral and evoked potential measures after implantation in postlingually deaf adults. The relationship between speech perception and auditory evoked potentials was investigated in newly implanted cochlear implant users from the day of implant activation to 9 months postimplantation, on five occasions, in 10 adults age 27 to 57 years who had been bilaterally profoundly deaf for 1 to 30 years prior to receiving a unilateral CI24 cochlear implant. Changes over time in middle latency response (MLR), mismatch negativity, and obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials and word and sentence speech perception scores were examined. Speech perception improved significantly over the 9-month period. MLRs varied and showed no consistent change over time. Three participants aged in their 50s had absent MLRs. The pattern of change in N1 amplitudes over the five visits varied across participants. P2 area increased significantly for 1,000- and 4,000-Hz tones but not for 250 Hz. The greatest change in P2 area occurred after 6 months of implant experience. Although there was a trend for mismatch negativity peak latency to reduce and width to increase after 3 months of implant experience, there was considerable variability and these changes were not significant. Only 60% of participants had a detectable mismatch initially; this increased to 100% at 9 months. The continued change in P2 area over the period evaluated, with a trend for greater change for right hemisphere recordings, is consistent with the pattern of incremental change in speech perception scores over time. MLR, N1, and mismatch negativity changes were inconsistent and hence P2 may be a more robust measure of auditory plasticity in adult implant recipients. P2 was still improving at 9 months postimplantation. Future studies should explore longitudinal changes over a longer period.

Keywords

Cochlear implant - speech perception - middle latency response - cortical auditory evoked potential - N1 - P2 - mismatch negativity
 

  • References

  • 1 Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D , et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 2013; 18 (1) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Blamey PJ, Pyman BC, Gordon M , et al. Factors predicting postoperative sentence scores in postlinguistically deaf adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1992; 101 (4) 342-348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG, Knutson JF, Abbas PJ, Tyler RS. Multivariate predictors of audiological success with multichannel cochlear implants. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1993; 102 (12) 909-916
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (6) 1235-1246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Tyler RS, Summerfield AQ. Cochlear implantation: relationships with research on auditory deprivation and acclimatization. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (3, Suppl): 38S-50S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gray RF, Quinn SJ, Court I, Vanat Z, Baguley DM. Patient performance over eighteen months with the Ineraid intracochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1995; 166: 275-277
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sandmann P, Plotz K, Hauthal N, de Vos M, Schönfeld R, Debener S. Rapid bilateral improvement in auditory cortex activity in postlingually deafened adults following cochlear implantation. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126 (3) 594-607
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Groenen PA, Beynon AJ, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001; 30 (1) 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Maurer J, Collet L, Pelster H, Truy E, Gallégo S. Auditory late cortical response and speech recognition in Digisonic cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (12) 2220-2224
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Beynon AJ, Snik AF. Use of the event-related P300 potential in cochlear implant subjects for the study of strategy-dependent speech processing. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (Suppl. 01) S44-S47
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Firszt JB, Chambers And RD, Kraus N. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: comparison among speech perception, dynamic range, and physiological measures. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (6) 516-531
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lammers MJ, Versnel H, van Zanten GA, Grolman W. Altered cortical activity in prelingually deafened cochlear implant users following long periods of auditory deprivation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2015; 16 (1) 159-170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Soshi T, Hisanaga S, Kodama N , et al. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2014; 316: 110-121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Pantev C, Dinnesen A, Ross B, Wollbrink A, Knief A. Dynamics of auditory plasticity after cochlear implantation: a longitudinal study. Cereb Cortex 2006; 16 (1) 31-36
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 McNeill C, Sharma M, Purdy SC, Agung K. Cortical auditory evoked responses from an implanted ear after 50 years of profound unilateral deafness. Cochlear Implants Int 2007; 8 (4) 189-199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Thorne PR. Auditory evoked potentials as measures of plasticity in humans. Audiol Neurootol 2001; 6 (4) 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kaga K, Kodera K, Hirota E, Tsuzuku T. P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report. Laryngoscope 1991; 101 (8) 905-907
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Burdo S, Razza S, Di Berardino F, Tognola G. Auditory cortical responses in patients with cochlear implants. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2006; 26 (2) 69-77
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Jerger J, Oliver T, Chmiel R. Auditory middle latency response: a perspective. Semin in Hear 1988; 9 (1) 75-85
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Groenen P, Snik A, van den Broek P. Electrically evoked auditory middle latency responses versus perception abilities in cochlear implant users. Audiology 1997; 36 (2) 83-97
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Nelson MD, Hall III JW, Jacobson GP. Factors affecting the recordability of auditory evoked response component Pb (P1). J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (2) 89-99
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Masuda A. Maturation of human cortical auditory function: differences between normal-hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 1996; 17 (5) 430-437
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sharma A, Nash AA, Dorman M. Cortical development, plasticity and re-organization in children with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord 2009; 42 (4) 272-279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ. Of kittens and kids: altered cortical maturation following profound deafness and cochlear implant use. Audiol Neurootol 2001; 6 (6) 363-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Zhang F, Hammer T, Banks HL, Benson C, Xiang J, Fu QJ. Mismatch negativity and adaptation measures of the late auditory evoked potential in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2011; 275 (1–2) 17-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gordon KA, Tanaka S, Wong DD, Papsin BC. Characterizing responses from auditory cortex in young people with several years of cochlear implant experience. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (10) 2347-2362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lammers MJ, Versnel H, van Zanten GA, Grolman W. Altered cortical activity in prelingually deafened cochlear implant users following long periods of auditory deprivation. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2015; 16 (1) 159-170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Turgeon C, Lazzouni L, Lepore F, Ellemberg D. An objective auditory measure to assess speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125 (4) 827-835
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Roman S, Canévet G, Marquis P, Triglia JM, Liégeois-Chauvel C. Relationship between auditory perception skills and mismatch negativity recorded in free field in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 2005; 201 (1–2) 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Timm L, Vuust P, Brattico E , et al. Residual neural processing of musical sound features in adult cochlear implant users. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 181
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Groenen P, Snik A, van den Broek P. On the clinical relevance of mismatch negativity: results from subjects with normal hearing and cochlear implant users. Audiol Neurootol 1996; 1 (2) 112-124
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Wable J, van den Abbeele T, Gallégo S, Frachet B. Mismatch negativity: a tool for the assessment of stimuli discrimination in cochlear implant subjects. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111 (4) 743-751
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Rahne T, Plontke SK, Wagner L. Mismatch negativity (MMN) objectively reflects timbre discrimination thresholds in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant users. Brain Res 2014; 1586: 143-151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Lopez-Valdes A, Mc Laughlin M, Viani L , et al. Auditory mismatch negativity in cochlear implant users: a window to spectral discrimination. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2013; 2013: 3555-3558
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Lang AH, Eerola O, Korpilahti P, Holopainen I, Salo S, Aaltonen O. Practical issues in the clinical application of mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (1) 118-130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Ponton CW, Don M. The mismatch negativity in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (1) 131-146
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Middlebrooks JC, Bierer JA, Snyder RL. Cochlear implants: the view from the brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2005; 15 (4) 488-493
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95 (2) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol. Trends Amplif 1997; 2 (1) 6-35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Chang SA, Tyler RS, Dunn CC , et al. Performance over time on adults with simultaneous bilateral cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (1) 35-43
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Tye-Murray N, Tyler RS, Woodworth GG, Gantz BJ. Performance over time with a nucleus or Ineraid cochlear implant. Ear Hear 1992; 13 (3) 200-209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Firszt JB, Chambers RD, Kraus And N, Reeder RM. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users I: effects of stimulus current level and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (6) 502-515
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Alain C, Campeanu S, Tremblay K. Changes in sensory evoked responses coincide with rapid improvement in speech identification performance. J Cogn Neurosci 2010; 22 (2) 392-403
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Tremblay KL, Shahin AJ, Picton T, Ross B. Auditory training alters the physiological detection of stimulus-specific cues in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120 (1) 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ponton CW, Vasama JP, Tremblay K, Khosla D, Kwong B, Don M. Plasticity in the adult human central auditory system: evidence from late-onset profound unilateral deafness. Hear Res 2001; 154 (1–2) 32-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Kral A, Hubka P, Tillein J. Strengthening of hearing ear representation reduces binaural sensitivity in early single-sided deafness. Audiol Neurootol 2015; 20 (Suppl. 01) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Makhdoum MJ, Groenen PA, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Intra- and interindividual correlations between auditory evoked potentials and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 1998; 27 (1) 13-20
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Reiss LA, Turner CW, Erenberg SR, Gantz BJ. Changes in pitch with a cochlear implant over time. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2007; 8 (2) 241-257
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar