Combined Brain-Perfusion SPECT and EEG Measurements Suggest Distinct Strategies for Speech Comprehension in CI Users With Higher and Lower Performance

Kessler, Mariella; Schierholz, Irina; Mamach, Martin; Wilke, Florian; Hahne, Anja; Büchner, Andreas; Geworski, Lilli; Bengel, Frank M.; Sandmann, Pascale; Berding, Georg

doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00787

Cited by 12 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 120 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of auditory deprivation and DoD on postoperative performance has to be taken into account while counseling suitable candidates for CI 6‐8 . Positron emission tomography results show a correlation between degree of cortical activation and speech therapy results 9,10 . Cochlear implantees who have used acoustic hearing aids before cochlear implantation tend to have better hearing results than those who have not used a hearing aid preoperatively 11‐14 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta‐analysis

Bernhard

Gauger

Ventura

et al. 2021

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Hearing loss is a highly disabling condition. Cochlear implantation is an established remedy if conventional hearing aids have failed to alleviate the level of disability. Unfortunately, cochlear implant (CI) performance varies dramatically. This study aims to examine the effects of duration of deafness (DoD) prior to cochlear implantation and the postoperative duration of implant experience with resulting hearing performance in postlingually deaf patients. Methods A systematic literature review and two meta‐analyses were conducted using the search terms cochlear implant AND duration deafness. Included studies evaluate the correlation between the DoD and auditory performance after cochlear implantation using monosyllabic and sentence tests. Correlation coefficients were determined using Pearson's correlation and Spearman rho. Results A total of 36 studies were identified and included data on cochlear implantations following postlingual deafness and postoperative speech testing of hearing outcomes for 1802 patients. The mean age ranged from 44 to 68 years with a DoD of 0.1 to 77 years. Cochlear implant use varied from 3 months to 14 years of age. Speech perception, which was assessed by sentence and monosyllabic word perception, was negatively correlated with DoD. Subgroup analyses revealed worse outcomes for longer DoD and shorter postoperative follow‐up. Conclusion DoD is one of the most important factors to predict speech perception after cochlear implantation in postlingually deaf patients. The meta‐analyses revealed a negative correlation between length of auditory deprivation and postoperative sentence and monosyllabic speech perception. Longer DoD seems to lead to worse CI performance, whereas more experience with CI mitigates the effect.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta‐analysis

Bernhard

Gauger

Ventura

et al. 2021

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have also shown the increased activation of frontal regions, specifically the inferior frontal gyrus, in speech perception, where larger activity is correlated with better performance (Eisner et al, 2010;Giraud et al, 2011;Kessler et al, 2020;Lee et al, 2007;Mortensen et al, 2006;Strelnikov et al, 2015;Suh et al, 2015). This change occurs before obtaining a CI and its level of activation before implantation is predictive of performance outcomes afterwards (Suh et al, 2015).…”

Section: Working Memory and Speech Perception Related To Clinical And...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brain imaging studies corroborate this theory of increased use of the cognitive reserve in those with hearing loss, CI users and NH individuals presented with noise vocoded speech. Studies show a greater deployment of resources along with increased recruitment of temporal, parietal and frontal areas (Ala et al, 2020;Alain et al, 2018;Becker et al, 2013;Campbell & Sharma, 2013, 2014Cartocci et al, 2018;Coez et al, 2014;Davis & Johnsrude, 2003;Decruy et al, 2020;Dimitrijevic et al, 2017;Glick & Sharma, 2017Hervais-Adelman et al, 2012;Kessler et al, 2020;Y.-S. Lee et al, 2016;Marsella et al, 2017;McMahon et al, 2016;Miles et al, 2017;Obleser & Weisz, 2012;Paul et al, 2021;Petersen et al, 2015) and modified connectivity (Bidelman et al, 2019;Campbell & Sharma, 2020;Davis & Johnsrude, 2007;Husain & Schmidt, 2014; Y. S. Lee et al, 2018;Murphy et al, 2020;Palva et al, 2010;Pessoa et al, 2002;Petrides & Pandya, 2002;Prince et al, 2021;Puschmann & Thiel, 2017;Schmidt et al, 2013;Sohoglu et al, 2012;Wild et al, 2012;Wolak et al, 2019;Zekveld et al, 2012) during perception, encoding, and retention of visual, auditory and verbal stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Brain imaging studies corroborate this theory of increased use of the cognitive reserve in those with hearing loss, CI users and NH individuals presented with noise vocoded speech. Studies show a greater deployment of resources along with increased recruitment of temporal, parietal and frontal areas (Ala et al, 2020; Alain et al, 2018; Becker et al, 2013; Campbell & Sharma, 2013, 2014, 2020; Cartocci et al, 2018; Coez et al, 2014; Davis & Johnsrude, 2003; Decruy et al, 2020; Dimitrijevic et al, 2017; Glick & Sharma, 2017, 2020; Hervais-Adelman et al, 2012; Kessler et al, 2020; H.-J. Lee et al, 2007; Y.-S. Lee et al, 2016; Marsella et al, 2017; McMahon et al, 2016; Miles et al, 2017; Obleser & Weisz, 2012; Paul et al, 2021; Petersen et al, 2015) and modified connectivity (Bidelman et al, 2019; Campbell & Sharma, 2020; L.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Greater working memory and speech perception scores in cochlear implant users predict better subjective quality of life and hearing

Prince

Chen

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common concern in individuals with cochlear implants (CIs) is difficulty following conversations in noisy environments and social settings. The ability to accomplish these listening tasks relies on the individual working memory abilities and draws upon limited cognitive resources to accomplish successful listening. For some individuals, allocating too much, can result deficits in speech perception and in long term detriments of quality of life. For this study, 31 CI users and NH controls completed a series of online behavioural tests and quality of life surveys, in order to investigate the relationship between visual and auditory working memory, clinical and behavioural measures of speech perception and quality of life and hearing. Results showed NH individuals were superior on auditory working memory and survey outcomes. In CI users, recall performance on the three working memory span tests declined from visual reading span to auditory listening in quiet and then listening in noise and speech perception was predictably worse when presented with noise maskers. Bilateral users performed better on each task compared to unilateral/HA and unilateral only users and reported better survey outcomes. Correlation analysis revealed that memory recall and speech perception ability were significantly correlated with sections of CIQOL and SSQ surveys along with clinical speech perception scores in CI users. These results confirm that hearing condition can predict working memory and speech perception and that working memory ability and speech perception, in turn, predict quality of life. Importantly, we demonstrate that online testing can be used as a tool to assess hearing, cognition, and quality of life in CI users.

show abstract

“…Different ways to process phonological tasks have been described and correlated to speech outcome in CI users by fMRI [Lazard and Giraud, 2017] and in SPECT and EEG studies [Kessler et al, 2020]. Whereas CI users with higher speech performance showed additional activations of parietal and occipital regions, those with lower performance used superior frontal areas during speech processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several factors are known to influence speech perception in cochlear implant (CI) users. To date, the underlying mechanisms have not yet been fully clarified. Although many CI users achieve a high level of speech perception, a small percentage of patients does not or only slightly benefit from the CI (poor performer, PP). In a previous study, PP showed significantly poorer results on nonauditory-based cognitive and linguistic tests than CI users with a very high level of speech understanding (star performer, SP). We now investigate if PP also differs from the CI user with an average performance (average performer, AP) in cognitive and linguistic performance. Methods: Seventeen adult postlingually deafened CI users with speech perception scores in quiet of 55 (9.32) % (AP) on the German Freiburg monosyllabic speech test at 65 dB underwent neurocognitive (attention, working memory, short- and long-term memory, verbal fluency, inhibition) and linguistic testing (word retrieval, lexical decision, phonological input lexicon). The results were compared to the performance of 15 PP (speech perception score of 15 [11.80] %) and 19 SP (speech perception score of 80 [4.85] %). For statistical analysis, U-Test and discrimination analysis have been done. Results: Significant differences between PP and AP were observed on linguistic tests, in Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN: p = 0.0026), lexical decision (LexDec: p = 0.026), phonological input lexicon (LEMO: p = 0.0085), and understanding of incomplete words (TRT: p = 0.0024). AP also had significantly better neurocognitive results than PP in the domains of attention (M3: p = 0.009) and working memory (OSPAN: p = 0.041; RST: p = 0.015) but not in delayed recall (delayed recall: p = 0.22), verbal fluency (verbal fluency: p = 0.084), and inhibition (Flanker: p = 0.35). In contrast, no differences were found hereby between AP and SP. Based on the TRT and the RAN, AP and PP could be separated in 100%. Discussion: The results indicate that PP constitute a distinct entity of CI users that differs even in nonauditory abilities from CI users with an average speech perception, especially with regard to rapid word retrieval either due to reduced phonological abilities or limited storage. Further studies should investigate if improved word retrieval by increased phonological and semantic training results in better speech perception in these CI users.

show abstract

Combined Brain-Perfusion SPECT and EEG Measurements Suggest Distinct Strategies for Speech Comprehension in CI Users With Higher and Lower Performance

Cited by 12 publications

References 120 publications

Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta‐analysis

Duration of deafness impacts auditory performance after cochlear implantation: A meta‐analysis

Greater working memory and speech perception scores in cochlear implant users predict better subjective quality of life and hearing

Poor Performer: A Distinct Entity in Cochlear Implant Users?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About