Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Auditory cortical processing in cochlear-implanted children with different language outcomes

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Behavioral evaluation of language development is an important index for the usefulness of cochlear implantation. However, it could not apply to infants and very young children. It is useful to adopt an objective measure to examine speech discrimination in this population. Thus, the current study aimed to predict the different behavioral language performance (good versus poor) in cochlear implant (CI) recipients through the auditory cortical assessment of speech discrimination with mismatch negativity (MMN).

Methods

The study comprised 40 CI children who were divided into two groups according to their behavioral language evaluation outcomes: 20 good and 20 poor CI performers. They were age, gender, and socioeconomically matched. The MMN was examined and compared between both groups with finding out the relationship between MMN and different variables.

Results

MMN existed in all good performers and 87.5% of the poor performers. There were significantly shorter latency, larger amplitude, and a larger area of MMN in the good performers. The MMN results correlated with a significant predictive effect on the behavioral measures of language evaluation.

Conclusion

The MMN is a clinically applicable objective measure of speech discrimination proficiency. Hence, it could be useful in CI programming and auditory cortical monitoring during rehabilitation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kral A, Sharma A (2012) Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Trends Neurosci 35:111–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kral A, O'Donoghue GM (2010) Profound deafness in childhood. N Engl J Med 363(15):1438–1450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D et al (2013) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurootol 18(1):36–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson CA, Lazard DS, Hartley DEH (2017) Plasticity in bilateral superior temporal cortex: effects of deafness and cochlear implantation on auditory and visual speech processing. Hear Res 343:138–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH (1995) Cochlear implantation in the UK 1990–1994. Report by MRC institute of hearing research on the evaluation of the national cochlear implantation program. HMSO Publication Centre, London

  6. Garnham C, O’Driscoll M, Ramsden R et al (2002) Speech understanding in noise with a Med-El COMBI 40+ cochlear implant using reduced channels sets. Ear Hear 23:540–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lazard D, Vincent C, Venail F et al (2012) Pre-, per- and postoperative factors affecting performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: a new conceptual model over time. PLoS ONE 7(11):e48739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB et al (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blamey PJ, Arndt P, Bergeron F (1996) Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neuro Otol 1:293–306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kraus N, Micco AG, Koch DB et al (1993) The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 65:118–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Huotilainen M, Lovio R, Kujala T et al (2011) Could audiovisual training be used to improve cognition in extremely low birth weight children? Acta Paediatr 100:1489–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Groenen P, Snik A, van den Broek P (2011) On the clinical relevance of mismatch negativity: results from subjects with normal hearing and cochlear implant users. Audiol Neuro Otol 1(1):112–124

    Google Scholar 

  13. Turgeon C, Lazzouni L, Lepore F et al (2014) An objective auditory measure to assess speech recognition in adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 125:827–835

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dinces E, Chobot-Rhodd J, Sussman E (2009) Behavioral and electrophysiological measures of auditory change detection in children following late cochlear implantation: a preliminary study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 73:843–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Department of Health, Western Australia (2011) Clinical guidelines for adult cochlear implantation. Health Networks Branch, Department of Health, Western Australia, Perth

    Google Scholar 

  16. Terman L, Merrill M (1972) Stanford binet intelligence scale. Highton, Mifflin Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma A, Campbell J (2011) A sensitive period for cochlear implantation in deaf children. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 1:51–53

    Google Scholar 

  18. Soliman S (1976) Speech discrimination audiometry, using Arabic phonetically Balanced 30 words. Ain Shams Medical J 1:24–30

    Google Scholar 

  19. Elkholi W, Soliman S, Kamal N (1991) Speech discrimination using Arabic word intelligibility by picture identification (WIPI) test in children with sensori-neural hearing loss. Master Thesis

  20. Fahmy S, Nofal L, Shehata S et al (2015) Updating indicators for scaling the socioeconomic level of families for health research. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 90:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW (1991) Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing impaired children. Am J Otol 12:144–150

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zein D, Ismail N, Mobasher M et al (2018) Outcomes of pediatric cochlear implantation contributing factors. MD thesis. El Azhar University

  23. Abo Hasseba A, El Sady S, El Shoubary A et al (2011) Standardization, translation and modification of the preschool language scale. MD thesis

  24. Marchman VA, Fernald A (2008) Speed of word recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later childhood. Dev Sci 11:F9–F16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Cejas I, Mitchell CM, Hoffman M et al (2018) Comparisons of IQ in children with and without cochlear implants: longitudinal findings and associations with language. Ear Hear 39(6):1187–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang F, Hammer T, Banks HL et al (2011) Mismatch negativity and adaptation measures of the late auditory evoked potential in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 275:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelly AS (2005) Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 116:1235–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh S, Liasis A, Rajput K et al (2004) Event-related potentials in pediatric cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 25(6):598–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ortmann M, Knief A, Deuster D et al (2013) Neural correlates of speech processing in prelingually deafened children and adolescents with cochlear implants. PLoS ONE 8:e67696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Näätänen R, Petersen B, Torppa R et al (2017) The MMN as a viable and objective marker of auditory development in CI users. Hear Res 353:57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ismaail NM, Shalapy AA, Ibraheem OA et al (2019) Temporal resolution in school-age children with cochlear dead regions. J Am Acad Audiol. https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.18004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hamid M, Kotait MA, Kolkaila EA (2019) Mismatch negativity in children with cochlear implant. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 5(5):1149–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wass M, Ibertsson T, Lyxell B et al (2008) Cognitive and linguistic skills in swedish children with cochlear implants—measures of accuracy and latency as indicators of development. Scand J Psychol 49:559–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kral A, Kronenberger W, Pisoni D et al (2016) Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: a connectome model. Lan Neuro 15(6):610–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ibraheem OA, Abdelghani M, Hassan EM et al (2020) Cognitive functions in cochlear-implanted children: a multidisciplinary approach (in press)

  36. Ortmann M, Zwitserlood P, Knief A et al (2017) When hearing is tricky: speech processing strategies in prelingually deafened children and adolescents with cochlear implants having good and poor speech performance. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0168655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jr A, Bernstein LE, Sungkarat W et al (2007) Vibrotactile activation of the auditory cortices in deaf versus hearing adults. NeuroReport 18(7):645–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sandmann P, Dillier N, Eichele T et al (2012) Visual activation of auditory cortex reflects maladaptive plasticity in cochlear implant users. Brain 135:555–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Eppsteiner RW, Shearer AE, Hildebrand MS et al (2012) Prediction of cochlear implant performance by genetic mutation: the spiral ganglion hypothesis. Hear Res 292(1–2):51–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. de Brito R, BittencourtGomez AGMV et al (2013) Cochlear implants and bacterial meningitis: a speech recognition study in paired samples. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 17(1):57–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liang MJ, Zhang XY, Chen T et al (2014) Evaluation of auditory cortical development in the early stages of post cochlear implantation using mismatch negativity measurement. Otol Neurotol 35(1):e7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Li Y, Shen M, Long M (2019) A preliminary study of auditory mismatch response on the day of cochlear implant activation in children with hearing aids prior implantation. PLoS ONE 14(1):e0210457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Kileny PR, Boerst A, Zwolan T (1997) Cognitive evoked potentials to speech and tonalstimuli in children with implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1117:161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gabr T (2018) Mismatch negativity (MMN): indexing auditory discrimination in cochlear implants. Hear Balance Commun 16(1):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Audio-Vestibular Medicine Unit, Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zagazig, Zagazig, Egypt

    Ola Abdallah Ibraheem, Ebtesam Hamed Nada & Nahla Hassan Gad

  2. Audio-Vestibular Medicine Unit, Department of Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tanta, Tanta, Egypt

    Enaas Ahmad Kolkaila

Authors
  1. Ola Abdallah Ibraheem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enaas Ahmad Kolkaila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ebtesam Hamed Nada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nahla Hassan Gad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, study procedures, data collection and analysis were performed by OAI and NHG. The first draft of the manuscript was written by OAI and NHG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ola Abdallah Ibraheem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that there was no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All the study procedures were performed using non-invasive testing, following the guidelines of the International Review Board of Zagazig University with an ID: 5613-29-9-2019.

Informed consents

Study took place after explaining the procedures to the participants/parents and obtaining informed consent the parents of the participants.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibraheem, O.A., Kolkaila, E.A., Nada, E.H. et al. Auditory cortical processing in cochlear-implanted children with different language outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 277, 1875–1883 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05958-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05958-0

Keyword

Search

Navigation