Speech processing in children with cochlear implant
Material type:
TextSubject(s): Online resources:
In:
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology xxx (2015) xxx–xxxAbstract: Cochlear implants (CIs) can be used effectively in the profoundly impaired children individuals.
Objectives: This work was designed to assess speech processing at brainstem and cortical level in
children fitted with CIs to investigate the possible influence of brainstem processing of speech on the
cortical processing in those children.
Method: Twenty children fitted with CIs underwent aided sound-field audiologic evaluation, speech
evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (S-CAEPs) and according to the results, children were
classified into two groups: group I with good cortical response and group II with poor cortical response.
This was followed by speech evoked ABR (S-ABR) recoding.
Results: P1 component of CAEPs was recorded in all children while other component showed variable
results. S-ABR was recorded in all children even those with poor S-CAEPs response who showed delayed
D, E, F and O latencies. However, S-ABR amplitudes did not show any significant difference between both
groups.
Conclusions: Children fitted with CI showed immediate cortical activation following device program-
ming and this activity depends on the age of implantation as well as the child’s age. S-ABR provides a new
clinical tool that showed an important role of brainstem in complex sound processing that contribute to
cortical processing.
Cochlear implants (CIs) can be used effectively in the profoundly impaired children individuals.
Objectives: This work was designed to assess speech processing at brainstem and cortical level in
children fitted with CIs to investigate the possible influence of brainstem processing of speech on the
cortical processing in those children.
Method: Twenty children fitted with CIs underwent aided sound-field audiologic evaluation, speech
evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (S-CAEPs) and according to the results, children were
classified into two groups: group I with good cortical response and group II with poor cortical response.
This was followed by speech evoked ABR (S-ABR) recoding.
Results: P1 component of CAEPs was recorded in all children while other component showed variable
results. S-ABR was recorded in all children even those with poor S-CAEPs response who showed delayed
D, E, F and O latencies. However, S-ABR amplitudes did not show any significant difference between both
groups.
Conclusions: Children fitted with CI showed immediate cortical activation following device program-
ming and this activity depends on the age of implantation as well as the child’s age. S-ABR provides a new
clinical tool that showed an important role of brainstem in complex sound processing that contribute to
cortical processing.