Speech processing in children with cochlear implant

Gabr, Takwa A.; Hassaan, Mohammad Ramadan

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.09.002

Cited by 10 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main finding in this study regarding sound-field S-ABR was all wave latency increment in the CI-recipient group, than in the NH group. This finding was consistent with the study conducted by Gabr and Hassaan [13], demonstrating that all wave latency in children with CI was longer than that of NH children. This outcome was also in agreement with the study of Galbraith, et al [16], where the results suggested that CI users may require a longer time for encoding speech stimuli, than non CI users.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Results show that the amplitude of the FFR component in the CI-recipient group was higher than that of the NH children group; however, the amplitude of the aperiodic component was lower in the CI-recipient group, than in the NH children group. These results are in agreement with a previous study that reported that the amplitude of sound-field S-ABR aperiodic in CI-recipients group was lower than FFR waveform; however, that study was conducted in two CI-recipients groups, and comparison with normal groups was not performed [13]. The measure of amplitude in the two studies was not similar.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The sound-field S-ABR presence in CI-recipients demonstrated that generally, the speech processing exists at the brainstem level, with respect to the differences seen with normal individuals. Consequently, it was observed that CI devices led to the neural conduction velocity and neural synchrony improvement [13]. This finding is in agreement with the results of the study conducted by Gama, et al [22], which was conducted on 23 participants with NH, for the FFR recording in the sound-field presentation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The measure of amplitude in the two studies was not similar. The factors that may account for this discrepancy were the background noise, the participant age, and the different CI prostheses used [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gabr and Hassaan [13] measured S-ABR on 20 children using unilateral CIs. They concluded that S-ABR is a new clinical tool, which can identify the role of the brainstem on speech sound processing that contributes to the auditory cortical processing [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sound-Field Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response in Cochlear-Implant Recipients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Currently limited information is available on speech stimuli processing at the subcortical level in the recipients of cochlear implant (CI). Speech processing in the brainstem level is measured using speech-auditory brainstem response (S-ABR). The purpose of the present study was to measure the S-ABR components in the sound-field presentation in CI recipients, and compare with normal hearing (NH) children.Subjects and Methods: In this descriptive-analytical study, participants were divided in two groups: patients with CIs; and NH group. The CI group consisted of 20 prelingual hearing impairment children (mean age=8.90 ± 0.79 years), with ipsilateral CIs (right side). The control group consisted of 20 healthy NH children, with comparable age and sex distribution. The S-ABR was evoked by the 40-ms synthesized /da/ syllable stimulus that was indicated in the sound-field presentation.Results: Sound-field S-ABR measured in the CI recipients indicated statistically significant delayed latencies, than in the NH group. In addition, these results demonstrated that the frequency following response peak amplitude was significantly higher in CI recipients, than in the NH counterparts (<i>p</i><0.05). Finally, the neural phase locking were significantly lower in CI recipients (<i>p</i><0.05). Conclusions: The findings of sound-field S-ABR demonstrated that CI recipients have neural encoding deficits in temporal and spectral domains at the brainstem level; therefore, the sound-field S-ABR can be considered an efficient clinical procedure to assess the speech process in CI recipients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sound-Field Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response in Cochlear-Implant Recipients

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Speech auditory brainstem response in audiological practice: a systematic review

Başöz

Guler

Kuru

et al. 2023

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Frequency-Following Response in Newborns and Infants: A Systematic Review of Acquisition Parameters

Lemos

Nunes

Evangelista

et al. 2021

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to characterize parameters used for frequency-following response (FFR) acquisition in children up to 24 months of age through a systematic review. Method The study was registered in PROSPERO and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' recommendations. Search was performed in six databases (LILACS, LIVIVO, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature (Google Scholar, OpenGrey, ProQuest)as well as via manual searches in bibliographic references. Observational studies using speech stimuli to elicit the FFR in infants with normal hearing on the age range from 0 until 24 months were included. No restrictions regarding language and year of publication were applied. Risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Data on stimulus, presentation rate, time window for analysis, number of sweeps, artifact rejection, online filters, stimulated ear, and examination condition were extracted. Results Four hundred fifty-nine studies were identified. After removing duplicates and reading titles and abstracts, 15 articles were included. Seven studies were classified as low risk of bias, seven as moderate risk, and one as high risk. Conclusions There is a consensus in the use of some acquisition parameters of the FFR with speech stimulus, such as the vertical mounting, the use of alternating polarity, a sampling rate of 20000 Hz, and the /da/ synthesized syllable of 40 ms in duration as the preferred stimulus. Although these parameters show some consensus, the results disclosed lack of a single established protocol for FFR acquisition with speech stimulus in infants in the investigated age range.

show abstract

Speech processing in children with cochlear implant

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

Sound-Field Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response in Cochlear-Implant Recipients

Sound-Field Speech Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response in Cochlear-Implant Recipients

Speech auditory brainstem response in audiological practice: a systematic review

Frequency-Following Response in Newborns and Infants: A Systematic Review of Acquisition Parameters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About