Abstracts
Ear & Hearing - Advanced Issue Abstracts
November-December 2002 |
- 1. Neurophysiology
of cochlear implant users I: Effects of stimulus current level
and electrode site on the electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 response
(AC002)
Jill Firszt, Ph. D., Ron D. Chambers, Ph.D., Nina Kraus, Ph.D.,
Ruth M. Reeder, M.A.
2. Neurophysiology of cochlear implant users II: Comparison
among speech perception, dynamic range and physiologic measures
(AC001)
Jill B. Firszt, Ph.D., Ron D. Chambers, Ph.D., Nina Kraus, Ph.D.
- A sensitive period
for the development of the central auditory system in children
with cochlear implants: Implications for age of implantation.
Anu Sharma, Michael F. Dorman, Anthony Spahr
- Speech Understanding
in Noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant Using Reduced
Channel Sets.
Carolyn Garnham, Martin O’Driscoll, Richard Ramsden, Shakeel
Saeed.
|
 |
Neurophysiology
of cochlear implant users I-II
These two articles present a comprehensive
study of neurophysiological measures in cochlear implant users.
Several measures were obtained from a group of eleven subjects.
The physiological measures included amplitude and latency of
peaks in the electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR),
electrical auditory middle latency response (EMLR) and the electrical
late auditory response (ELAR). Behavioral measures included
threshold and maximum comfortable stimulation level at different
stimulation electrodes, as well as word and sentence recognition
tests in quite and in noise. The first article systematically
explores the effect of implanted electrode site and stimulus
current level on latency, amplitude and threshold of the various
physiological responses to electrical stimulation. In addition
to their value as a normative reference, data from this study
reveal important similarities and differences between electrically-
and acoustically-evoked auditory potentials. The second article
explores relations between physiological and behavioral measures.
Among other results, listeners without open-set speech recognition
demonstrated poorly formed or absent evoked potential responses
and lack of change in the size of the dynamic range with a change
in stimulus rate. These results support the hypothesis that
adult recipients of cochlear implants who have open-set speech
perception and those recipients with no open-set speech perception
differ in their
neurophysiologic responses recorded at one or more levels of
the auditory pathway.
|
A
sensitive period for the development of the central auditory
system in children with cochlear implants: Implications for
age of implantation.
Anu Sharma, Michael F. Dorman, Anthony Spahr
Because Pl latencies of the cortical
auditory evoked potential vary as a function of chronological
age, they can be used to infer the maturational status of auditory
pathways and the human central auditory system. This measure
was used to assess the consequences of deafness and of cochlear
implantation at different ages on auditory development. The
development of P1 response latencies was measured in 104 congenitally
deaf people who had been fit with cochlear implants at ages
ranging from 1.3 years to adulthood. A comparison of Pl latencies
in implanted children with those of age-matched normal-hearing
peers revealed that implanted children with the longest period
of auditory deprivation before implantation - 7 or more years
-had abnormal cortical response latencies to speech. Implanted
children with no more than 3.5 years of auditory deprivation
evidenced age-appropriate latency responses within 6 months
after the onset of electrical stimulation. These data suggest
that in the absence of normal stimulation there is a sensitive
period of about 3.5 years during which the human central auditory
system remains maximally plastic.
|
Speech Understanding in Noise
with a Med-El COMBI 40+ Cochlear Implant Using Reduced Channel
Sets.
Carolyn Garnham, Martin O’Driscoll, Richard Ramsden, Shakeel
Saeed
This study aimed to determine the
number of stimulation channels needed for cochlear implant users
to achieve asymptotic performance in the recognition of speech
in noise. Performance in speech tests was measured for patients
using the Med-El implementation of the CIS stimulation strategy
with 2,3,4,6,8 and 10 channels out of a possible maximum of
12. Vowel, consonant and sentence identification tests were
presented against a background of pink noise to eleven subjects.
Using moderate signal to noise ratios, asymptotic performance
was achieved using 4 channels for consonants, 6 channels for
vowels and 8 channels for sentences. In another experiment,
understanding of monosyllabic words reached a maximum value
at a similar number of channels both in quite and in pink noise,
and the mean increase in test score between 6 and 11 channels
(although statistically significant) was only 7%. The data suggest
that 12 frequency channels are more than adequate for cochlear
implant users to achieve asymptotic performance levels in clinical
speech tests applied in the presence of wideband noise at moderate
signal to noise ratios.
|

|