Premium
Auditory Late Cortical Response and Speech Recognition in Digisonic Cochlear Implant Users
Author(s) -
Maurer Jan,
Collet L.,
Pelster H.,
Truy E.,
Gallégo S.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
the laryngoscope
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.181
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1531-4995
pISSN - 0023-852X
DOI - 10.1097/00005537-200212000-00017
Subject(s) - audiology , cochlear implant , auditory brainstem response , psychology , brainstem , latency (audio) , electrophysiology , speech perception , medicine , hearing loss , perception , neuroscience , computer science , telecommunications
Objective The purpose of the study was to test for differences in late electrically evoked auditory potentials between subjects exhibiting “good” versus “poor” speech recognition performances with their cochlear implants. Methods Late auditory evoked responses were measured in 30 subjects equipped with the Digisonic (MXM, Antibes, France) cochlear implant, 15 of whom had “good” speech recognition scores (i.e., more than 89% correct phoneme identification without lip reading). The 15 other subjects had poorer speech recognition scores (i.e., less than 85%). Results Differences in N1P2 amplitude, as well as P1, N1, and P2 latencies, and N1‐P1 and N1‐P2 latency intervals were tested. Wave P2 latency was found to be significantly different between the two groups ( P = .016), being shorter in “good” than in “poor” performers. The strength of the statistical relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables (r 2 = 17%) was substantially smaller than that observed using electrically evoked auditory brainstem response (EABR) for the same implanted device (r 2 = 49% for the EABR wave III–V latency interval). Conclusions Some characteristics of late electrically evoked auditory potentials differ significantly among cochlear implant users depending on their speech recognition performance. However, the relationship between electrophysiological and speech recognition variables is more pronounced when early (brainstem) rather than late (cortical) evoked responses are considered.