Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 23(03): e292-e298
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688967
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Mismatch Negativity in Children with Cochlear Implant

Natalia Martinez Fernandes 
1   Department of Audiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Daniela Gil
2   Department of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Marisa Frasson de Azevedo
2   Department of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

09 February 2019

04 April 2019

Publication Date:
28 May 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The mismatch negativity (MMN) is a negative long-latency auditory potential elicited by any discriminable change in a repetitive aspect of auditory stimulation. This evoked potential can provide cortical information about the sound processing, including in children who use cochlear implants.

Objective To identify MMN characteristics regarding latency, amplitude, and wave area in cochlear implanted children and to identify associations among language development, speech perception and family involvement.

Methods This is a descriptive, observational, cross-sectional study, which compared two groups: study group—children with cochlear implant, and control group—hearing children. The children were submitted to MMN evaluation with non-verbal tone burst stimulus, differing in frequency in sound field at 70 dBHL, with SmartEP equipment (Intelligent Hearing Systems, Miami, FL, USA). Speech perception and language development questionnaires were also applied, and the family participation in the rehabilitation process was classified.

Results The occurrence of MMN was 73.3% for the control group and 53.3% for the study group. Values of latency, amplitude and area of MMN of children using cochlear implants were similar to those of hearing children, and did not differ between groups. The occurrence of MMN was not correlated to the variables of hearing, language and family categories.

Conclusion Children with cochlear implants showed similar MMN responses to those of the children in the control group, with mean latency, amplitude and area of 208.9 ms (±12.8), -2.37 μV (±0.38) and 86.5 μVms (±23.4), respectively. There was no correlation between the presence of MMN and children's performance in the auditory and language development tests or family involvement during rehabilitation.

Keywords

cochlear implants - electrophysiology - hearing loss - language development

Note

Research realized at Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Department at UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.


Sources of Research Assistance

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, in the Portuguese acronym).


 

  • References

  • 1 Alho K. Cerebral generators of mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic counterpart (MMNm) elicited by sound changes. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (01) 38-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bevilacqua MC, Tech EA. Elaboração de um procedimento de avaliação de percepção de fala em crianças deficientes auditivas profundas a partir dos cinco anos de idade. Em: Marchesan IQ, Zorzi JL, Gomes ICD. (eds). Tópicos em Fonoaudiologia. São Paulo: Editora Lovise; 1996: 411-433
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bishop DV. Using mismatch negativity to study central auditory processing in developmental language and literacy impairments: where are we, and where should we be going?. Psychol Bull 2007; 133 (04) 651-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bussab WO, Morettin PA. Estatística Básica. 8a ed. São Paulo: Saraiva; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Castiquini EAT. Escala de integração auditiva significativa: procedimento adaptado para a avaliação da percepção da fala [dissertação]. São Paulo: Pontífica Universidade Católica de São Paulo; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Conover WJ. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. 3a ed. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Duncan CC, Barry RJ, Connolly JF. , et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research: guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120 (11) 1883-1908
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Erber NP. Auditory training. Washington: Alexander Graham Bell Association for Deaf; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Geers AE. Techniques for assessing auditory speech perception and lipreading enhancement in young deaf children. Washington: The Volta Review; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Gução ACB. Efeito da variação de frequência e duração do estímulo no registro do P300 e MMN [dissertação]. São Paulo: Universidade do Estado de São Paulo, Fonoaudiologia; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jasper HH. The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1958; 10: 370-375
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (06) 1235-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, Sharma A, Micco A, Nicol T. Speech-evoked cortical potentials in children. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4 (04) 238-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kraus N, McGee TJ. Mismatch negativity in the assessment of central auditory function. Am J Audiol 1994; 3 (02) 39-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Liang M, Zhang X, Chen T. , et al. Evaluation of auditory cortical development in the early stages of post cochlear implantation using mismatch negativity measurement. Otol Neurotol 2014; 35 (01) e7-e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moeller MP. Early intervention and language development in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics 2000; 106 (03) E43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Moret AL, Costa OA. Conceituação e indicação do implante coclear. In: Boechat EM. , et al, eds. Tratado de audiologia. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2015: 327-331
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Näätänen R, Escera C. Mismatch negativity: clinical and other applications. Audiol Neurotol 2000; 5 (3-4): 105-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Näätänen R, Petersen B, Torppa R, Lonka E, Vuust P. The MMN as a viable and objective marker of auditory development in CI users. Hear Res 2017; 353: 57-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Obuchi C, Harashima T, Shiroma M. Auditory evoked potentials under active and passive hearing conditions in adult cochlear implant users. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 5 (Suppl. 01) S6-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Orlandi AC, Bevilacqua MC. Deficiência auditiva nos primeiros anos de vida: procedimento para avaliação da percepção de fala. Pro Fono 1999; 10: 87-92
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Ortmann M, Knief A, Deuster D. , et al. Neural Correlates of Speech Processing in Prelingually Deafened Children and Adolescents with Cochlear Implants. PLOS ONE 2013; 8: 15 p
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Don M. , et al. Maturation of the mismatch negativity: effects of profound deafness and cochlear implant use. Audiol Neurotol 2000; 5 (3-4): 167-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Robbins AM, Osberger MJ. Meaningful Use of Speech Scale (MUSS). Indianopolis: Indiana University School of Medicine; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Berry SW. Evaluating meaningful auditory integration in profoundly hearing-impaired children. Am J Otol 1991; 12 (Suppl): 144-150
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Roman S, Canévet G, Marquis P, Triglia JM, Liégeois-Chauvel C. Relationship between auditory perception skills and mismatch negativity recorded in free field in cochlear-implant users. Hear Res 2005; 201 (1-2): 10-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sanju HK, Kumar P. Prevalence of mismatch negativity with tonal stimuli in normal-hearing individuals. Egypt J Otolaryngol 2016; 32: 57-60
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Singh S, Liasis A, Rajput K, Towell A, Luxon L. Event-related potentials in pediatric cochlear implant patients. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (06) 598-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Vavatzanidis NK, Mürbe D, Friederici A, Hahne A. The basis for language acquisition: Congenitally deaf infants discriminate vowel length in the first months after cochlear implantation. J Cogn Neurosci 2015; 27 (12) 2427-2441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vincenti V, Bacciu A, Guida M. , et al. Pediatric cochlear implantation: an update. Ital J Pediatr 2014; 40: 72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar