P3 Cognitive Potential in Cochlear Implant Users

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)
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 15 Lehnhardt E, Aschendorff A. Prognostic factors in 187 adults provided with the Nucleus cochlear mini-system 22. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 1993; 48: 146-152
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 19 Wellman MB, Sommer DD, McKenna J. Sensorineural hearing loss in postmeningitic children. Otol Neurotol 2003; 24 (06) 907-912
• 20 Schmidt H, Heimann B, Djukic M. , et al. Neuropsychological sequelae of bacterial and viral meningitis. Brain 2006; 129 (Pt 2): 333-345
• 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
• 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
• 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