PDF herunterladen
Semin Hear
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1812859
Review Article

Preliminary Findings on Electrically Evoked Cortical Auditory Potentials in Cochlear Implant Recipients with Inner Ear Malformations

Autoren

  • Siti Hufaidah Konting

    1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  • Abu Bakar Zulkiflee

    1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  • Prepageran Narayanan

    1   Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  • Ahmad Aidil Arafat Dzulkarnain

    2   Department of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, Kulliyyah of Allied Health Sciences, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Inner ear malformations (IEMs) represent unique challenges in cochlear implantation, potentially influencing electrode placement during surgery and neural responsiveness. Thus, electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials (eCAEPs) were suggested to be performed as objective measures of higher-level auditory perception at the cortical level in assessing cochlear implant (CI) outcomes in this complex population. This study aims to evaluate preliminary findings of P1 latency in eCAEPs among CI recipients with several types of IEMs at different positions of electrodes, that is, apical, medial, and basal regions. A cohort of five CI recipients with IEMs was evaluated using postoperative eCAEPs recordings, and P1 latency was analyzed at different positions of electrodes. The mean age of the subjects was 14.01 ± 5.51 years, with common cavity malformations, incomplete partition type I (IP-I), incomplete partition type II (IP-II), and enlarged vestibular aqueduct. Early data suggest P1 responses were generally present in all IEM cases in this cohort, with the mean of P1 latency for the electrode at apical, medial, and basal regions of 108.2 ± 13.4, 124.0 ± 23.6, and 140.0 ± 41.5 ms, respectively. These findings may reflect differential cortical response across IEM types at multiple CI electrode locations.

Keywords

cochlear implant - inner ear malformation - electrically evoked cortical auditory potentials


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. Oktober 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • Abbas, P.J., Brown, C.J. (2015). Assessment of responses to cochlear implant stimulation at different levels of the auditory pathway. Hear Res, 322:67–76
  • Callejón-Leblic, M.A., Barrios-Romero, M.M., Kontides, A., Sánchez-Gómez, S., Beynon, A.J. (2022). Electrically evoked auditory cortical responses elicited from individually fitted stimulation parameters in cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol, 61(12):1007–1017
  • Campbell, J.D., Cardon, G., Sharma, A. (2011). Clinical application of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential biomarker in children with sensorineural hearing loss and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Semin Hear, 32(2):147–155
  • Gordon, K.A., Valero, J., van Hoesel, R., Papsin, B.C. (2008). Abnormal timing delays in auditory brainstem responses evoked by bilateral cochlear implant use in children. Otol Neurotol, 29(2):193–198
  • Han, J.J., Choi, J.Y., Kang, W.S., Lee, J.H. (2021). Electrically evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials in children with cochlear nerve deficiency. Otol Neurotol, 42(1):e1–e8
  • He, S., Grover, B., Archer, S. (2018). Electrode position and cochlear implant outcomes: a review. J Otol, 13(1):1–5
  • Jackler, R.K., Luxford, W.M., House, W.F. (1987). Congenital malformations of the inner ear: a classification based on embryogenesis. Laryngoscope, 97(3 Pt 2, suppl 40):2–14
  • McRackan T.R., Gifford, R.H., Dwyer, R.T., Labadie, R.F., Wanna, G.B., Rivas, A. (2016). Cochlear implantation in common cavity deformity: surgical and audiological outcomes. Otol Neurotol, 37(2):135–140
  • Rance, G., Cone-Wesson, B., Wunderlich, J., Dowell, R. (2002). Cortical auditory evoked potential measures in children with auditory neuropathy. Ear Hear, 23(3):239–253
  • Sennaroglu, L. (2014). Classification and current management of inner ear malformations. Balkan Med J, 31(1):1–13
  • Sharma, A., Dorman, M.F., Spahr, A.J. (2002). A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear, 23(6):532–539
  • Skidmore, J., Oleson, J.J., Yuan, Y., He, S. (2023). The relationship between cochlear implant speech perception outcomes and electrophysiological measures of the electrically evoked compound action potential. Ear Hear, 44(6):1485–1497
  • Thai-Van, H., Cozma, S, Boutitie, F., Disant, F., Truy, E., Collet, L. (2007). The pattern of auditory brainstem response wave V maturation in cochlear-implanted children. Clin Neurophysiol, 118(3):676–689
  • Wunderlich, J.L., Cone-Wesson, B.K. (2006). Maturation of CAEP in infants and children: a review. Hear Res, 212(1–2):212–223