Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 21(04): 351-357
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1600122
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials with Simple (Tone Burst) and Complex (Speech) Stimuli in Children with Cochlear Implant

Kelly Vasconcelos Chaves Martins
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo – UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Daniela Gil
1   Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo – UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 July 2016

02 January 2017

Publication Date:
15 March 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The registry of the component P1 of the cortical auditory evoked potential has been widely used to analyze the behavior of auditory pathways in response to cochlear implant stimulation.

Objective To determine the influence of aural rehabilitation in the parameters of latency and amplitude of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential component elicited by simple auditory stimuli (tone burst) and complex stimuli (speech) in children with cochlear implants.

Method The study included six individuals of both genders aged 5 to 10 years old who have been cochlear implant users for at least 12 months, and who attended auditory rehabilitation with an aural rehabilitation therapy approach. Participants were submitted to research of the cortical auditory evoked potential at the beginning of the study and after 3 months of aural rehabilitation. To elicit the responses, simple stimuli (tone burst) and complex stimuli (speech) were used and presented in free field at 70 dB HL. The results were statistically analyzed, and both evaluations were compared.

Results There was no significant difference between the type of eliciting stimulus of the cortical auditory evoked potential for the latency and the amplitude of P1. There was a statistically significant difference in the P1 latency between the evaluations for both stimuli, with reduction of the latency in the second evaluation after 3 months of auditory rehabilitation. There was no statistically significant difference regarding the amplitude of P1 under the two types of stimuli or in the two evaluations.

Conclusion A decrease in latency of the P1 component elicited by both simple and complex stimuli was observed within a three-month interval in children with cochlear implant undergoing aural rehabilitation.

Keywords

cochlear implant - auditory evoked potentials - neuronal plasticity - aural rehabilitation - hearing - child
 

  • References

  • 1 Costa OA. Implantes cocleares multicanais no tratamento da surdez em adultos. [Thesis]. Bauru: Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Yoon PJ. Hearing loss and cochlear implantation in children. Adv Pediatr 2011; 58 (01) 277-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bevilacqua MC, Formigoni GMC. Audiologia educacional: uma opção terapêutica para a criança deficiente auditiva. Carapicuíba, São Paulo: Pró-fono; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Beynon AJ, Snik AFM, van den Broek P. Evaluation of cochlear implant benefit with auditory cortical evoked potentials. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (07) 429-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pantev C, Ross B, Wollbrink A. , et al. Acoustically and electrically evoked responses of the human cortex before and after cochlear implantation. Hear Res 2002; 171 (1-2): 191-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (06) 1235-1246
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman MF. Cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants. Brain Res 2008; 1239 (1239): 56-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sharma A, Nash AA, Dorman M. Cortical development, plasticity and re-organization in children with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord 2009; 42 (04) 272-279
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 McNeill C, Sharma M, Purdy SC. Are cortical auditory evoked potentials useful in the clinical assessment of adults with cochlear implants?. Cochlear Implants Int 2009; 10 (Suppl. 01) 78-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Reis ACMB, Frizzo ACF. Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Longa Latência. Bevilacqua MC, Martinez MAN, Balen SA, Pupo AC, Reis ACM, Frota S. Tratado de Audiologia. 1st ed. São Paulo: Santos; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (06) 532-539
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Kwong B, Masuda A. Auditory system plasticity in children after long periods of complete deafness. Neuroreport 1996; 20 8(1): 61-5
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee TJ, Nicol TG. Developmental changes in P1 and N1 central auditory responses elicited by consonant-vowel syllables. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 104 (06) 540-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Sharma A, Martin K, Roland P. , et al. P1 latency as a biomarker for central auditory development in children with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (08) 564-573
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kral A, Sharma A. Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Trends Neurosci 2012; 35 (02) 111-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kral A, Eggermont JJ. What's to lose and what's to learn: development under auditory deprivation, cochlear implants and limits of cortical plasticity. Brain Res Rev 2007; 56 (01) 259-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ganek H, McConkey Robbins A, Niparko JK. Language outcomes after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012; 45 (01) 173-185
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jang JH, Jang HK, Kim SE, Oh SH, Chang SO, Lee JH. Analysis of p1 latency in normal hearing and profound sensorineural hearing loss. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 3 (04) 194-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nash A, Sharma A, Martin K, Biever A. Clinical applications of the p1 cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP) biomarker. Seewald R, Bamford J. 2007: 43-9
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Thabet MT, Said NM. Cortical auditory evoked potential (P1): a potential objective indicator for auditory rehabilitation outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 76 (12) 1712-1718
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sharma A, Dorman MF, Kral A. The influence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. Hear Res 2005; 203 (1-2): 134-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle 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 (05) 430-437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. Rapid development of cortical auditory evoked potentials after early cochlear implantation. Neuroreport 2002; 13 (10) 1365-1368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK, Shepherd R. Maturation of the cortical auditory evoked potential in infants and young children. Hear Res 2006; 212 (1-2): 185-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111 (02) 220-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ventura LMP, Costa Filho OA, Alvarenga KF. Maturação do sistema auditivo central em crianças ouvintes normais. Pró-Fono R Atual Cient 2009; 21 (02) 101-106
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Figueiredo CC, Gil D. Avaliação do grau de envolvimento familiar nos atendimentos de crianças com deficiência auditiva. Audiol Communic Res 2013; 18 (04) 303-307
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Fortes PC. Satisfação de pais de crianças deficientes auditivas quanto ao desenvolvimento auditivo e de linguagem: construindo indicadores de qualidade em um serviço de saúde auditiva [Dissertation]. São Paulo: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 2009
    Google Scholar