Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22(04): 408-414
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1613687
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

P3 Cognitive Potential in Cochlear Implant Users

Signe Grasel
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Mario Greters
2   Department of Otolaryngology, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil
,
Maria Valeria Schimidt Goffi-Gomez
3   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Roseli Bittar
1   Department of Otolaryngology, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Raimar Weber
4   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Complexo Hospitalar Edmundo Vasconcelos, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Jeanne Oiticica
5   Department of Otolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Ricardo Ferreira Bento
5   Department of Otolaryngology, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

22 February 2017

03 September 2017

Publication Date:
24 April 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The P3 cognitive evoked potential is recorded when a subject correctly identifies, evaluates and processes two different auditory stimuli.

Objective to evaluate the latency and amplitude of the P3 evoked potential in 26 cochlear implant users with post-lingual deafness with good or poor speech recognition scores as compared with normal hearing subjects matched for age and educational level.

Methods In this prospective cohort study, auditory cortical responses were recorded from 26 post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users (19 with good and 7 with poor speech recognition scores) and 26 control subjects.

Results There was a significant difference in the P3 latency between cochlear implant users with poor speech recognition scores (G-) and their control group (CG) (p = 0.04), and between G- and cochlear implant users with good speech discrimination (G+) (p = 0.01). We found no significant difference in the P3 latency between the CG and G+. In this study, all G- patients had deafness due to meningitis, which suggests that higher auditory function was impaired too.

Conclusion Post-lingual deaf adult cochlear implant users in the G- group had prolonged P3 latencies as compared with the CG and the cochlear implant users in the G+ group. The amplitudes were similar between patients and controls. All G- subjects were deaf due to meningitis. These findings suggest that meningitis may have deleterious effects not only on the peripheral auditory system but on the central auditory processing as well.

Keywords

P3 event-related potentials - cochlear implant - speech discrimination
 

  • References

  • 1 Censo 2010. http://censo2010.ibge.gov.br (acessed in May 3rd 2017)
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Fim do silêncio. http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/treinamento/5sentidos/te3004200319.shtml (acessed in May 3rd 2017)
  • 3 Nasralla HR, Goffi V, Rigamonti C. , et al. Conditions of Personality Predicting Results with Cochlear Implant in Post-lingual Patients with Long-time Hearing Deprivation. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 13: 400-406
    Google Scholar
  • 4 McNeill C, Sharma M, Purdy SC, Agung K. Cortical auditory evoked responses from an implanted ear after 50 years of profound unilateral deafness. Cochlear Implants Int 2007; 8 (04) 189-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beynon AJ, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Evaluation of cochlear implant benefit with auditory cortical evoked potentials. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (07) 429-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kileny PR. Evoked potentials in the management of patients with cochlear implants: research and clinical applications. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (2, Suppl): 124S-127S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Groenen PAP, Beynon AJ, Snik AFM, van den Broek P. Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001; 30 (01) 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F. , et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiol Neurootol 1996; 1 (05) 293-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Beynon AJ, Snik AF, Stegeman DF, van den Broek P. Discrimination of speech sound contrasts determined with behavioral tests and event-related potentials in cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (01) 42-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kubo T, Yamamoto K, Iwaki T, Matsukawa M, Doi K, Tamura M. Significance of auditory evoked responses (EABR and P300) in cochlear implant subjects. Acta Otolaryngol 2001; 121 (02) 257-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tarkka IM, Stokić DS, Basile LF, Papanicolaou AC. Electric source localization of the auditory P300 agrees with magnetic source localization. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995; 96 (06) 538-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brankack J, Seidenbecher T, Müller-Gärtner HW. Task-relevant late positive component in rats: is it related to hippocampal theta rhythm?. Hippocampus 1996; 6 (05) 475-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Maurer J, Collet L, Pelster H, Truy E, Gallégo S. Auditory late cortical response and speech recognition in Digisonic cochlear implant users. Laryngoscope 2002; 112 (12) 2220-2224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rasmussen N, Johnsen NJ, Bohr VA. Otologic sequelae after pneumococcal meningitis: a survey of 164 consecutive cases with a follow-up of 94 survivors. Laryngoscope 1991; 101 (08) 876-882
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lehnhardt E, Aschendorff A. Prognostic factors in 187 adults provided with the Nucleus cochlear mini-system 22. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1993; 48: 146-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Nadol Jr JB, Young YS, Glynn RJ. Survival of spiral ganglion cells in profound sensorineural hearing loss: implications for cochlear implantation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1989; 98 (06) 411-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nadol Jr JB. Patterns of neural degeneration in the human cochlea and auditory nerve: implications for cochlear implantation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997; 117 (3 Pt 1): 220-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hugosson S, Carlsson E, Borg E, Brorson LO, Langeroth G, Olcén P. Audiovestibular and neuropsychological outcome of adults who had recovered from childhood bacterial meningitis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 1997; 42 (02) 149-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wellman MB, Sommer DD, McKenna J. Sensorineural hearing loss in postmeningitic children. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (06) 907-912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schmidt H, Heimann B, Djukic M. , et al. Neuropsychological sequelae of bacterial and viral meningitis. Brain 2006; 129 (Pt 2): 333-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mühler R, Ziese M, Kevanishvili Z, Schmidt M, von Specht H. Visualization of stimulation patterns in cochlear implants: application to event-related potentials (P300) in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (02) 186-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fjell AM, Walhovd KB. Effects of auditory stimulus intensity and hearing threshold on the relationship among P300, age, and cognitive function. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114 (05) 799-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Greters ME, Bittar RS, Grasel SS, Oiticica J, Bento RF. Hearing performance as a predictor of postural recovery in cochlear implant users. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2017; 83 (01) 16-22
    Google Scholar