Application of auditory cortical evoked potentials for auditory assessment in people using auditory prosthesis

Deng,Jian‑Hua; Du,Ji‑Hong; Ma,Xin‑Rui; Zhang,Pei‑Fang

doi:10.3892/etm.2018.7140

Application of auditory cortical evoked potentials for auditory assessment in people using auditory prosthesis

Authors:
- Jian‑Hua Deng
- Ji‑Hong Du
- Xin‑Rui Ma
- Pei‑Fang Zhang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Otolaryngology, The First People's Hospital of Kunshan, Kunshan, Jiangsu 215300, P.R. China
Published online on: December 28, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2018.7140
Pages: 1877-1883

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study explored the application of auditory cortical evoked potentials (ACEP) in the auditory assessment of people using an auditory prosthesis. There were 126 patients with prelingual deafness who were selected from January 2012‑June 2017 from the First People's Hospital of Kunshan (Kunshan, China). HEARLab™ system was used to induce a P1‑N1‑P2 waveform under the condition of 60 dB sound pressure level at /m/, /g/ and /t/ acoustic stimulations. Speech production ability and auditory perception ability of patients were evaluated by speech intelligibility rating (SIR) and categories of auditory performance (CAP). Extraction rate of P1 waves of patients with auditory prosthesis was higher than that of N1 and P2 waves under different acoustic stimulations. A younger initial age and shorter deafness duration before patients used an auditory prosthesis led to more marked P1‑N1‑P2 waveforms and longer P1 latencies. At /m/ acoustic stimulation, P1 latency and amplitude were negatively associated with the usage time of auditory prosthesis. There were significant differences in the results of SIR and CAP and the initial age of use of auditory prosthesis and deafness duration before patients used the auditory prosthesis. These findings suggest that ACEP can be used to evaluate the auditory assessment of people using an auditory prosthesis. The initial age of use of an auditory prosthesis and deafness duration can affect the P1‑N1‑P2 waveform and P1 latency of prelingual deafness.

View Figures

View References

1	Richardson GP, de Monvel JB and Petit C: How the genetics of deafness illuminates auditory physiology. Annu Rev Physiol. 73:311–334. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Vivero RJ, Fan K, Angeli S, Balkany TJ and Liu XZ: Cochlear implantation in common forms of genetic deafness. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 74:1107–1112. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Miao W, Li J, Tang M, Xian J, Li W, Liu Z, Liu S, Sabel BA, Wang Z and He H: Altered white matter integrity in adolescents with prelingual deafness: A high-resolution tract-based spatial statistics imaging study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 34:1264–1270. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Kaplan DM and Puterman M: Pediatric cochlear implants in prelingual deafness: Medium and long-term outcomes. Isr Med Assoc J. 12:107–109. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
5	Kral A and O'Donoghue GM: Profound deafness in childhood. N Engl J Med. 363:1438–1450. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Fu S, Dong J, Wang C and Chen G: Parental attitudes toward genetic testing for prelingual deafness in China. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 74:1122–1125. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Vlastarakos PV, Proikas K, Papacharalampous G, Exadaktylou I, Mochloulis G and Nikolopoulos TP: Cochlear implantation under the first year of age-the outcomes. A critical systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 74:119–126. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Teoh SW, Pisoni DB and Miyamoto RT: Cochlear implantation in adults with prelingual deafness. Part II. Underlying constraints that affect audiological outcomes. Laryngoscope. 114:1714–1719. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Zheng Y, Soli SD, Wang K, Meng J, Meng Z, Xu K and Tao Y: A normative study of early prelingual auditory development. Audiol Neurootol. 14:214–222. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Jalilvand H, Pourbakht A and Jalaee S: The relationship between hearing aid frequency response and acceptable noise level in patients with sensorineural hearing loss. Adv Biomed Res. 4:2562015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Van Dun B, Carter L and Dillon H: Sensitivity of cortical auditory evoked potential detection for hearing-impaired infants in response to short speech sounds. Audiol Res. 2:e132012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Durante AS, Wieselberg MB, Carvalho S, Costa N, Pucci B, Gudayol N and Almeida KD: Cortical auditory evoked potential: Evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users. Codas. 26:367–373. 2014.(In English, Portuguese). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Campbell JD, Cardon G and Sharma A: Clinical application of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential biomarker in children with sensorineural hearing loss and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Semin Hear. 32:147–155. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Thabet MT and Said NM: Cortical auditory evoked potential (P1): A potential objective indicator for auditory rehabilitation outcome. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 76:1712–1718. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Sharma A, Campbell J and Cardon G: Developmental and cross-modal plasticity in deafness: Evidence from the P1 and N1 event related potentials in cochlear implanted children. Int J Psychophysiol. 95:135–144. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Wagner M, Roychoudhury A, Campanelli L, Shafer VL, Martin B and Steinschneider M: Representation of spectro-temporal features of spoken words within the P1-N1-P2 and T-complex of the auditory evoked potentials (AEP). Neurosci Lett. 614:119–126. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Elangovan S and Stuart A: A cross-linguistic examination of cortical auditory evoked potentials for a categorical voicing contrast. Neurosci Lett. 490:140–144. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Lina-Granade G, Truy E, Porot M, Collet L and Disant F: Hearing impairment in children: Early diagnosis is essential. Arch Pediatr. 7:991–1000. 2000.(In French). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Guo S, Li H, Chen B and Dai C: Study of categories of auditory performance and speech intelligibility rating of post-lingual cochlear implantes. Lin Chung Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi. 28:955–957, 960. 2014.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI
20	Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M and Martin K: Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clin Neurophysiol. 116:648–657. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Alcantara JL, Moore BC, Kühnel V and Launer S: Evaluation of the noise reduction system in a commercial digital hearing aid. Int J Audiol. 42:34–42. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Zhang VW, Ching TY, Van Buynder P, Hou S, Flynn C, Burns L, McGhie K and Wong AO: Aided cortical response, speech intelligibility, consonant perception and functional performance of young children using conventional amplification or nonlinear frequency compression. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 78:1692–1700. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Lonka E, Hasan M and Komulainen E: Spoken language skills and educational placement in Finnish children with cochlear implants. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 63:296–304. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Russo N, Zecker S, Trommer B, Chen J and Kraus N: Effects of background noise on cortical encoding of speech in autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 39:1185–1196. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Sharma A, Martin K, Roland P, Bauer P, Sweeney MH, Gilley P and Dorman M: P1 latency as a biomarker for central auditory development in children with hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol. 16:564–573. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Tremblay KL, Billings CJ, Friesen LM and Souza PE: Neural representation of amplified speech sounds. Ear Hear. 27:93–103. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Sharma A and Dorman MF: Central auditory development in children with cochlear implants: Clinical implications. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 64:66–88. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
28	Zhou H, Chen Z, Shi H, Wu Y and Yin S: Categories of auditory performance and speech intelligibility ratings of early-implanted children without speech training. PLoS One. 8:e538522013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI