Cortical maturation in children with cochlear implants: Correlation between electrophysiological and behavioral measurement

Abstract

Central auditory pathway maturation in children depends on auditory sensory stimulation. The objective of the present study was to monitor the cortical maturation of children with cochlear implants using electrophysiological and auditory skills measurements. The study was longitudinal and consisted of 30 subjects, 15 (8 girls and 7 boys) of whom had a cochlear implant, with a mean age at activation time of 36.4 months (minimum, 17 months; maximum, 66 months), and 15 of whom were normal-hearing children who were matched based on gender and chronological age. The auditory and speech skills of the children with cochlear implants were evaluated using GASP, IT-MAIS and MUSS measures. Both groups underwent electrophysiological evaluation using long-latency auditory evoked potentials. Each child was evaluated at three and nine months after cochlear implant activation, with the same time interval adopted for the hearing children. The results showed improvements in auditory and speech skills as measured by IT-MAIS and MUSS. Similarly, the long-latency auditory evoked potential evaluation revealed a decrease in P1 component latency; however, the latency remained significantly longer than that of the hearing children, even after nine months of cochlear implant use. It was observed that a shorter P1 latency corresponded to more evident development of auditory skills. Regarding auditory behavior, it was observed that children who could master the auditory skill of discrimination showed better results in other evaluations, both behavioral and electrophysiological, than those who had mastered only the speech-detection skill. Therefore, cochlear implant auditory stimulation facilitated auditory pathway maturation, which decreased the latency of the P1 component and advanced the development of auditory and speech skills. The analysis of the long-latency auditory evoked potentials revealed that the P1 component was an important biomarker of auditory development during the rehabilitation process.

Cochlear Implantation Outcome in Children with DFNB1 locus Pathogenic Variants

“…One may consider using objective measures such as cortical auditory evoked potentials that depict auditory development with a gradual decrease in P1 latency. However, this method requires elaborated procedures and experienced staff and is more burdensome for young children [33,34].…”

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in 2-Year-Old Subjects

“…3 In neonates and infants, the study of AEPs contributes to the assessment of the sensitivity, maturation, and neuroplasticity of auditory pathways, consisting an important source of information on auditory processing and the potential need of sound amplification, facilitating the implementation of early intervention programs, if necessary. [4][5][6][7][8] Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) are longlatency responses also known as exogenous potentials, since they are determined by the physical properties of the stimulus rather than by the response of the subject. Cortical…”

Functional near‐infrared spectroscopy as a tool for assessing speech and spoken language processing in pediatric and adult cochlear implant users

“…For example, lack or loss of sound‐evoked neural stimulation early in development can result in the auditory cortex being co‐opted by other sensory modalities (e.g., vision), although the degree to which such cross‐modal reorganization takes place in humans who experience some hearing prior to deafness appears to be limited to secondary brain regions (Glick & Sharma, ). Nonetheless, given lack of auditory input from birth, as is the case for congenitally deaf individuals, cross‐modal reorganization can limit the influence of whatever auditory input subsequently is provided by the implant, and early implantation maximizes auditory benefits (Silva et al, ). Thus, it is clear that differential experience over the lifespan modifies whether and how the auditory cortex processes sensory input, with implications for speech and language outcomes.…”