4.5 Article

Effects of cochlear implant use on the electrically evoked middle latency response in children

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 204, Issue 1-2, Pages 78-89

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2005.01.003

Keywords

deafness; congenital; pre-lingual; peri-lingual; evoked potentials; electrical stimulation; sensitive periods; auditory; human; children; thalamus; cortex; synchrony; development; plasticity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The electrically evoked middle latency response (eMLR) reflects central auditory activity in cochlear implant users. This response was recorded repeatedly in 50 children over the first year of cochlear implant use and in 31 children with 5.3 +/- 2.9 years of implant experience. The eMLR was rarely detected at the time of implantation in anaesthetized or sedated children and was detected in only 35% of awake children at initial device stimulation. The detectability of the eMLR increased over the first year of implant use becoming 100%, detectable in children after at least one year. Acutely evoked responses were more likely to be present in older children despite longer periods of auditory deprivation. Within six months of implant use. most children had detectable eMLRs. At early stages of device use, eMLR amplitudes were lower in children implanted below the age of 5 years compared to children implanted at older ages; amplitudes increased over time in both groups. Latencies after six months of implant use were prolonged in the Younger group and decreased with implant use. EMLR changes with chronic cochlear implant use suggest an activity-dependent plasticity of the central auditory system. Results suggest that the pattern of electrically evoked activity and development in the auditory thalamo-cortical pathways will be dependent upon the duration or auditory deprivation Occurring in early childhood. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available