Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(02): e132-e139
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1695022
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Behavioral and Electrophysiological Assessment of Adults Who Underwent Cochlear Implantation After Hearing Aid Experience[*]

Victor Goiris Calderaro 
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery/Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Division, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral
2   Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Benedita Aparecida Borges da Luz
2   Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Sarah Carolina Bernal
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery/Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Division, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Miguel Ângelo Hyppolito
3   Department of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
,
Ana Claudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery/Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Division, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 February 2019

20 June 2019

Publication Date:
04 November 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Cochlear implantation has been considered a viable option to restore hearing perception in adults with severe to profound postlingual hearing loss.

Objectives To analyze behavioral hearing responses and P300 latency and amplitude measurements in adults with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss at two phases, first when they were using hearing aids (HAs) and, then, after 12 months of cochlear implant (CI) use. The association between behavioral and electrophysiological evaluations was explored, as it is believed that the study of auditory processing with different hearing devices can contribute to future CI adjustments and fittings, especially for patients who cannot give subjective feedback (such as small children and individuals with multiple disabilities).

Methods Prospective comparative study (Ethical approval 11489/2014). Twelve adults were assessed, 7 males and 5 females, in the 22 to 76 years old age range, who had undergone CI surgery after HA experience.

Results The analyses showed an improvement of hearing thresholds when patients started using CIs. Comparing data from P300 latency measurements, there was an increase of the P300 wave post-CI at Cz and Fz. Regarding the amplitude, P300 mean values decreased at Cz, but increased at Fz. There was no significant correlation between behavioral and electrophysiological assessment and the variables age, gender, auditory deprivation, and electronic device used.

Conclusion There was a significant improvement of hearing thresholds after twelve months of CI experience. The mean latency values of P300 after 12 months of CI use increased at Cz and Fz, while mean amplitude values decreased at Cz and increased at Fz.

Keywords

event-related potentials - P300 - cochlear implantation - adult - hearing loss

* This paper was presented in: 31° Encontro Internacional de Audiologia - São Paulo, SP, Brasil.


 

  • References

  • 1 Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH. , et al. The effects of cochlear implantation on speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011; 59 (03) 446-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Tefili D, Barrault GFG, Ferreira AA. , et al. Cochlear implants: technological aspects and socioeconomic role. Braz. J. Biom. Eng. 2013; 29: 414-433
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Goodin DS, Starr A, Chippendale T, Squires KC. Sequential changes in the P3 component of the auditory evoked potential in confusional states and dementing illnesses. Neurology 1983; 33 (09) 1215-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 1965; 150 (3700): 1187-1188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kraus N, Mcgee T. Potenciais auditivos de longa latência. In: Katz J. , ed. Tratado de audiologia clínica. São Paulo, SP: Manole; 1999: 403-420
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Mcpherson DL. Late potential of the auditory system. 2nd ed. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kaga K, Kodera K, Hirota E, Tsuzuku T. P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report. Laryngoscope 1991; 101 (08) 905-907
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Micco AG, Kraus N, Koch DB. , et al. Speech-evoked cognitive P300 potentials in cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1995; 16 (04) 514-520
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Groenen PAP, Makhdoum M, van den Brink JL, Stollman MH, Snik AF, van den Broek P. The relation between electric auditory brain stem and cognitive responses and speech perception in cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol 1996; 116 (06) 785-790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Oviatt DL, Kileny PR. Auditory event-related potentials elicited from cochlear implant recipients and hearing subjects. Am J Audiol 1991; 1 (01) 48-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Franco GM. O potencial evocado cognitivo em adultos normais. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2001; 59 (2-A): 198-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Simões HdeO, Frizzo ACF, Zanchetta S, Hyppolito MÂ, Reis AC. Variables in P300 recording: task type and electrode position. CoDAS 2016; 28 (04) 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brasil. Portaria GM/MS N° 1.278 de 20 de outubro de 1999. Aprova os critérios de Indicação e Contra-Indicação de Implante e as normas para Cadastramento de Centros/Núcleos para a realização de Implante Coclear. Brasília, out. 1999
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brasil. Portaria GM/MS N° 793 de 24 de abril de 2012 (2012a). Institui a rede de cuidados à pessoa com deficiência no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde. Brasília, seção 1, p. 94-95, abril 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Brasil. Portaria GM/MS N° 835 de 25 de abril de 2012 ( 2012 b). Institui incentivos financeiros de investimento e de custeio para o Componente Atenção Especializada da Rede de Cuidados à Pessoa com Deficiência no Âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde. Brasília, abril 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Miziara ID, Miziara CS, Tsuji RK, Bento RF. Bioethics and medical/legal considerations on cochlear implants in children. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (03) 70-79
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Geers AE, Nicholas JG, Sedey AL. Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 2003; 24 (1, Suppl) 46S-58S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Angelo TCS, Bevilacqua MC, Moret ALM. Percepção da fala em deficientes auditivos pré-linguais usuários de implante coclear. Pró-Fono R Atual Cient 2010; 22: 275-280
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Queiroz CAUF, Bevilacqua MC, Costa MPR. Estudo longitudinal da compreensão verbal de crianças usuárias de implante coclear. Rev CEFAC 2010; 12: 210-215
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Blamey P, Artieres F, Başkent D. , et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants: an update with 2251 patients. Audiol Neurotol 2013; 18 (01) 36-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pupo AC, Balieiro CR, Figueiredo RSL. Estudo retrospectivo de crianças e jovens com deficiência auditiva: caracterização das etiologias e quadro audiológico. Rev CEFAC 2008; 10: 84-91
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Calháu CMDF, Lima Júnior LR, Reis AMCS. , et al. [Etiology profile of the patients implanted in the cochlear implant program]. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2011; 77 (01) 13-18
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Nóbrega M, Weckx LLM, Juliano Y. , et al. Aspectos diagnósticos e etiológicos da deficiência auditiva em crianças e adolescentes. Rev Paul Pediatr 1998; 1: 28-43
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Pinto MM, Raimundo JC, Samelli AG. , et al. Age at the diagnosis and in the beginning of intervention from hearing impaired children, in a public Brazilian hearing health service. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol 2012; 16: 44-49
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Cullen RD, Higgins C, Buss E, Clark M, Pillsbury III HC, Buchman CA. Cochlear implantation in patients with substantial residual hearing. Laryngoscope 2004; 114 (12) 2218-2223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Padilla Romero MJ, Sainz Quevedo M, Roldán Segura C. [Cochlear implant in postlingual adults with progressive hearing loss]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 2004; 55 (10) 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 de Nobrega M, Weckx LLM, Juliano Y. Study of the hearing loss in children and adolescents, comparing the periods of 1990-1994 and 1994-2000. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005; 69 (06) 829-838
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Walch C, Anderhuber W, Köle W, Berghold A. Bilateral sensorineural hearing disorders in children: etiology of deafness and evaluation of hearing tests. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2000; 53 (01) 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Guedes MC, Brito RV, Goffi-Gomez MVS. , et al. Telemetria de resposta neural intra-operatória em usuários de implante coclear. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2005; 71: 660-667
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Green KMJ, Bhatt Y, Mawman DJ. , et al. Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults. Cochlear Implants Int 2007; 8 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Goodin DS, Squires KC, Henderson BH, Starr A. Age-related variations in evoked potentials to auditory stimuli in normal human subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978; 44 (04) 447-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Roth WT, Hopkins III WF, Kopell BS. Event-related potential changes in healthy aged females. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1979; 46 (01) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Brown WS, Marsh JT, LaRue A. Exponential electrophysiological aging: P3 latency. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1983; 55 (03) 277-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Polich J, Starr A. Evoked Potentials in aging. In: Albert MI, ed. Clinical neurology of aging. New York: Oxford University Press; 1983: 149-177
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118 (10) 2128-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Okusa M, Shiraishi T, Kubo T, Nageishi Y. Effects of discrimination difficulty on cognitive event-related brain potentials in patients with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 121 (05) 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vesco KK, Bone RC, Ryan JC, Polich J. P300 in young and elderly subjects: auditory frequency and intensity effects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 88 (04) 302-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Reis ACB, Frizzo ACF, Isaac ML. , et al. P300 in subjects with hearing loss. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2014; 81: 126-132
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. Introduction to Case Studies in Neuroaudiology. In: Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. , ed. Neuroaudiology - Case Studies. Singular Publishing Group; 1994: 1-5
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Musiek FE. Aplicação de testes auditivos centrais: uma abordagem geral. In: Katz J, ed. Tratado de Audiologia Clínica. São Paulo: Manole; 1989: 323-339
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Oates PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (05) 399-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Polich J, Howard L, Starr A. P300 latency correlates with digit span. Psychophysiology 1983; 20 (06) 665-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Sandman CA, Patterson JV. The auditory event-related potential is a stable and reliable measure in elderly subjects over a 3 year period. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111 (08) 1427-1437
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Machado SCS, Carvalho ACO, Silva PLG. Standard characterization of P300 in young adults. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2009; 14: 83-90
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar