The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear-implant users

Kraus, Nina; Micco, Alan G; Koch, Dawn Burton; McGee, Therese; Carrell, Thomas D.; Sharma, Anu; Wiet, Richard J.; Weingarten, Charles

doi:10.1016/0378-5955(93)90206-g

“…Although the amplitude of the MMN was smaller in CI users than in controls, findings indicate that a timbre-MMN can be elicited in CI users. This implicates that the automatic change detection mechanism of the auditory sensory memory was operating, independent of whether the stimulus was processed through a normal cochlea or mediated by a CI (in accordance with results from previous studies investigating the MMN in CI users, see Kraus et al, 1993Kraus et al, , 1995Wable et al, 2000). Mean amplitudes of all effects differed significantly between controls and CI users.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related potential study

Koelsch

¹

,

Wittfoth

²

,

Wolf

³

et al. 2004

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Compare the processing of music-syntactic irregularities and physical oddballs between cochlear implant (CI) users and matched controls.Methods: Musical chord sequences were presented, some of which contained functionally irregular chords, or a chord with an instrumental timbre that deviated from the standard timbre.Results: In both controls and CI users, functionally irregular chords elicited early (around 200 ms) and late (around 500 ms) negative electric brain responses (early right anterior negativity,ERAN and N5). Amplitudes of effects depended on the degree of music-syntactic irregularity in both groups; effects elicited in CI users were distinctly smaller than in controls. Physically deviant chords elicited a timbremismatch negativity (MMN) and a P3 in both groups, again with smaller amplitudes in CI users.Conclusions: ERAN and N5 (as well as timbre-MMN and P3), can be elicited in CI users. Although amplitudes of effects were considerably smaller in the CI group, the presence of MMN and ERAN indicates that neural mechanisms of both physical and musicsyntactic irregularity-detection were active in this group.

show abstract

“…For the EAMLR, a negative trough, Na, at approximately 15 to 18 msec, would be followed by a positive peak, Pa, at approximately 25 to 30 msec from the onset of the stimulus at suprathreshold levels (Jyung et al, 1989;Kileny & Kemink, 1987;Özdamar & Kraus, 1983;Picton et al, 1974). Electrical N1-P2 cortical responses would consist of a negative trough, N1, at approximately 80 to 110 msec, followed by a positive peak, P2, at approximately 180 to 210 msec (Kraus et al, 1993;Näätänen & Picton, 1987;Picton et al, 1974;Ponton & Don, 1995). For all evoked potentials, each waveform was compared with that generated with a minimum current level during the control run.…”

Section: Identification and Measures Of Waveformsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users I: Effects of Stimulus Current Level and Electrode Site on the Electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 Response

Firszt

¹

,

Chambers

²

,

Kraus

³

et al. 2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design:The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures.Results: For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions: Electrophysiologic responses of Waves

show abstract

“…Recording of electrical activity included two or three replications of 1000 sweeps (EABR), 500 sweeps (EAMLR), and 300 sweeps (ELAR) at each stimulus level with a time window of 10 msec (EABR), 50 msec (EAMLR), and 300 msec (ELAR) for each stimulus condition. For the ELAR, eye movements were monitored using electrodes located on the superior and lateral canthus of one eye (Kraus et al, 1993). Artifact rejection eliminated trials that included eye movement and interfered with the recording of the response.…”

Section: Electrophysiologic Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reports of late auditory potentials evoked with electrical stimulation have included recordings of the N1, P2, P300, and mismatch negativity (MMN) response elicited with pulsed tones (Oviatt & Kileny, 1991), stimulated electrode pairs (Makhdoum, Groenen, Snik, & van den Broek, 1997;Ponton & Don, 1995), and speech (Kaga, Kodera, Hirota, & Tsuzuka, 1991;Kraus et al, 1993;Micco et al, 1995). Results suggest that cortical responses provide a mechanism for understanding how electrical stimuli are registered by the central auditory system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures

Firszt

¹

,

Chambers

²

,

Kraus

³

2002

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: As the need for objective measures with cochlear implant users increases, it is critical to understand how electrical potentials behave when stimulus parameters are systematically varied. The purpose of this study was to record and evaluate the effects of implanted electrode site and stimulus current level on latency, amplitude, and threshold measures of electrically evoked auditory potentials, representing brainstem and cortical levels of the auditory system. Design:The electrical auditory brainstem response (EABR), electrical auditory middle latency response (EAMLR), and the electrical late auditory response (ELAR) were recorded from the same experimental subjects, 11 adult Clarion cochlear implant users. The Waves II, III, and V of the EABR, the Na-Pa complex of the EAMLR and the N1-P2 complex of the ELAR were investigated relative to electrode site (along the intra-cochlear electrode array) and stimulus current level. Evoked potential measures were examined for statistical significance using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for repeated measures.Results: For the EABR, Wave V latency was significantly longer for the basal electrode (7) compared with the mid (4) and apical (1) electrodes. For the EAMLR and ELAR, there were no significant differences in latency by electrode site. For all subjects and each of the evoked potentials, the apical electrodes tended to have the largest amplitude and the basal electrodes the smallest amplitude, although amplitude differences did not reach statistical significance. In general, decreases in stimulus current level resulted in statistically significant decreases in the amplitude of Wave V, Na-Pa and N1-P2. The evoked potential thresholds for Wave V, Na-Pa, and N1-P2 were significantly higher for the basal Electrode 7 than for Electrodes 4 and 1. Conclusions: Electrophysiologic responses of Waves

show abstract

The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear-implant users

Cited by 127 publications

References 26 publications

Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related potential study

Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related potential study

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users I: Effects of Stimulus Current Level and Electrode Site on the Electrical ABR, MLR, and N1-P2 Response

Neurophysiology of Cochlear Implant Users II: Comparison Among Speech Perception, Dynamic Range, and Physiological Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About