2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2023.110817
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Audiovisual integration in children with cochlear implants revealed through EEG and fNIRS

Razieh Alemi,
Jace Wolfe,
Sara Neumann
et al.
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is widely agreed that visual speech speeds up cortical processing of auditory signals within 100 ms poststimulus onset, with N1 and P2, the most robust auditory event-related potentials, significantly reduced in amplitude by the influence of visual speech ( Van Wassenhove et al, 2005 ). Early cochlear implant users showed comparable auditory and visual potentials to their normal hearing peers, and their auditory activation became stronger in the AV compared with AO mode, likely due to reinforcement after implantation ( Alemi et al, 2023 ). Furthermore, the N1 and P2 components of auditory-evoked potentials are known to be suppressed due to AV interactions, resulting in earlier and smaller amplitudes compared with when no visual information is provided ( Van Wassenhove et al, 2005 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is widely agreed that visual speech speeds up cortical processing of auditory signals within 100 ms poststimulus onset, with N1 and P2, the most robust auditory event-related potentials, significantly reduced in amplitude by the influence of visual speech ( Van Wassenhove et al, 2005 ). Early cochlear implant users showed comparable auditory and visual potentials to their normal hearing peers, and their auditory activation became stronger in the AV compared with AO mode, likely due to reinforcement after implantation ( Alemi et al, 2023 ). Furthermore, the N1 and P2 components of auditory-evoked potentials are known to be suppressed due to AV interactions, resulting in earlier and smaller amplitudes compared with when no visual information is provided ( Van Wassenhove et al, 2005 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also note that we replicated this contrast (and the weak visual cortex response of children in the LL group) with more advanced forms of visual stimulation (a speaking face in Alemi et al . 57 and written words/sudowords in another article in preparation). So, it is very unlikely that the passive nature of the current task was the main reason for a weak visual cortex response in the children of the LL group.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The data from the two imaging techniques were acquired sequentially, with counterbalanced order. Several other tasks were conducted using the same techniques in each child on the same day: a low-level auditory task, 56 a motor task, 54 a phonological task (spoken/written words and pseudo-words), an audiovisual integration task, 57 emotional processing (a 10-min child-friendly video from the movie ‘Despicable Me’) and a 7-min resting-state recording. 58 As the entire protocol for each technique was substantial, they were conducted at different times with a large break in between.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%