Academic Journal
View in EDS
PDF Full Text
HTML Full Text

Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness.

Bibliographic Details
Title: Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness.
Authors: Andre Wedekind, Gunesh Rajan, Bram Van Dun, Dayse Távora-Vieira
Source: PLoS ONE, Vol 15, Iss 1, p e0227371 (2020)
Publisher Information: Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2020.
Publication Year: 2020
Collection: LCC:Medicine
LCC:Science
Subject Terms: Medicine, Science
More Details: BACKGROUND:Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness (SSD) is the only treatment option with the potential to restore binaural hearing cues. Significant binaural benefit has been measured in adults by speech in noise and localisation tests, who receive a cochlear implant for SSD, however, little is known on the cortical changes that help provide this benefit. In the present study, detection of sound in the auditory cortex, speech testing and localisation was used to investigate the ability of a cochlear implant (CI) to restore auditory cortical latencies and improve binaural benefit in the adult SSD population. METHODS:Twenty-nine adults with acquired single-sided deafness who received a CI in adulthood were studied. Speech perception in noise was tested using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test, localisation ability was measured using the auditory speech sounds evaluation (AδE) localisation test and cortical auditory evoked responses, comparing N1-P2 latencies recorded from the normal hearing ear and cochlear implant were used to investigate the synchrony of the cortical pathway from the CI and normal hearing ear (NHe) with binaural hearing function. RESULTS:There was a significant improvement in speech perception in noise in all spatial configurations S0/N0 (Z = -3.066, p
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: English
ISSN: 1932-6203
Relation: https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227371
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/aa8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
Accession Number: edsdoj.8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHjPtM4BHU3ZchRwgzYmadcigk49r9CVlbU7V5F6lgH7WwG0UqpAl3krbhFWJ-p4K5u0AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBt_Mu3-7RgKnRyeNgIBEICBmnXNTGalAcuB7v0DwjKyJ0ALcOyw1GcVjErwtK6AmTxLIo2k05dYlBVP91Dsmp2Z1ZXKBIR2mBqbKTrJqefWcnfORrWCE3RVMRIcjR6Gc3wFxoRsa-gPELpl2peGIViZ1EGWYvF5OE12sQaK-xY7tdUa-MSkVkQRSAsmDForjsb08WvdHoAQUMerbcnU0OQPVIp3yG4KZw99v3s=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0141212429;[78be]14jan.20;2020Jan17.04:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0141212429-1">Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness </title> <sbt id="AN0141212429-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Background: Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness (SSD) is the only treatment option with the potential to restore binaural hearing cues. Significant binaural benefit has been measured in adults by speech in noise and localisation tests, who receive a cochlear implant for SSD, however, little is known on the cortical changes that help provide this benefit. In the present study, detection of sound in the auditory cortex, speech testing and localisation was used to investigate the ability of a cochlear implant (CI) to restore auditory cortical latencies and improve binaural benefit in the adult SSD population. Methods: Twenty-nine adults with acquired single-sided deafness who received a CI in adulthood were studied. Speech perception in noise was tested using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test, localisation ability was measured using the auditory speech sounds evaluation (AδE) localisation test and cortical auditory evoked responses, comparing N1-P2 latencies recorded from the normal hearing ear and cochlear implant were used to investigate the synchrony of the cortical pathway from the CI and normal hearing ear (NHe) with binaural hearing function. Results: There was a significant improvement in speech perception in noise in all spatial configurations S0/N0 (Z = -3.066, p<0.002), S0/NHE (Z = -4.031, p<0.001), SCI/NHE (Z = -3.851, p<0.001). Localization significantly improved when tested with the cochlear implant on (p<0.001) with a shorter duration of deafness correlating to a greater improvement in localisation ability F(1:18) = 6.854; p = 0.017). There was no significant difference in N1-P2 latency recorded from the normal hearing ear and the CI. Conclusion: Cortical auditory evoked response latencies recorded from the CI and NHe showed no significant difference, indicating that the detection of sound in the auditory cortex occurred simultaneously, providing the cortex with auditory information for binaural hearing.</p> <p>Single-sided deafness (SSD) is a condition where an individual has a severe-profound sensorineural hearing loss in one ear and normal hearing on the contralateral side. This deprives the individual of access to binaural cues: binaural squelch, binaural summation and the head-shadow effect [[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]]. The real-world impact of these deficits is poor speech understanding in noise and impaired localisation. Cochlear implantation in SSD started as a treatment for adults with intractable tinnitus [[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]]. However, hearing improvement was also obtained by these patients, opening the door for several research groups to further investigate the restoration of binaural hearing benefits including sound localisation, speech perception in noise and self-perceived hearing abilities [[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref4">6</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]]. Early study by Vermeire and Van De Heyning (2009) showed that CI could improve hearing in SSD patients. Arndt et al (2011) compared CI to other modalities of hearing rehabilitation in SSD patients with less than 10 years of duration of deafness. They concluded that CI for SSD provided superior outcomes compared with other treatment options (bone-conduction implants or contralateral-routing of signal hearing aids) and that the signal from the CI does not interfere with the normal hearing ear's ability to understand speech [[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]]. Távora-Vieira et al. (2015) demonstrated that SSD CI users have a significant improvement in localization abilities with CI on compared to CI off and duration of deafness had no significant effect on the outcomes. More recently, Prejban et al (2018) found that there was no significant difference in lateralization ability in SSD CI users compared with a normal-hearing group. Further, an improvement of 1.6dB was seen in speech reception thresholds (SRT) in CI recipients when wearing their implant compared to not wearing it, with CI experience influencing the measured improvement [[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]]. A long-term follow up study by Mertens et al. (2016) demonstrated that SSD CI recipients retained benefit binaural effects when tested a minimum of 3 years after implantation[[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref8">13</reflink>]]. Supporting this is a multi centre study using thirty-four SSD CI recipients who maintained binaural improvement in the long term, with a significant improvement in localisation (in the horizontal plane), speech in noise and subjective hearing performance 4–10 years after implantation [[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>]].</p> <p>Predicted outcomes of CI for SSD have in the past been extrapolated from the bilaterally deaf population, with results initially thought to be dependent on duration of deafness of the ear to be implanted [[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]]. Recent research from our group and other implant units challenge this, demonstrating significant improvements in speech-in-noise and localisation abilities even after a long duration of severe-profound hearing loss in one ear (>10years) [[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]]. The difference in candidacy between bilaterally deaf and SSD may be attributable to the bilateral cortical activation by the better hearing ear. Boisvert et al (2012) reviewed the outcomes of ten adults with severe bilateral hearing loss who had worn a hearing aid in only one ear (for a minimum of 15 years). Each individual received sequential bilateral CI's and underwent standardized speech recognition testing after one year. No significant difference was recorded in speech recognition scores between the two ears [[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]], indicating that auditory deprivation in one ear did not influence CI outcomes. Support for the preservation of cortical integrity from unilateral hearing has been supported by multiple authors who have demonstrated that CI outcomes are more closely related to the hearing in the better ear rather than the preoperative hearing of the implanted ear[[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]].</p> <p>Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) are a series of negative and positive deflections referred to as the N1-P2 complex with latencies roughly around 100-200ms after stimulus onset [[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref15">22</reflink>]]. The N1-P2 complex does not require attention from the participant and correlates more closely with behavioural measures than auditory evoked potentials which arise from the auditory nerve or brainstem [[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>]]. Further, it is a surrogate marker of cortical maturation and neural plasticity after implantation [[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref17">24</reflink>]]. P2 latency is associated with speech perception with poor CI performers demonstrating a delayed P2 latency compared with normal hearing controls [[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]] and may also correlate with the effects of auditory training and experience [[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref20">28</reflink>]–[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref21">30</reflink>]]. In post-lingual bilaterally deaf adult CI users who received an implant in one ear, an increase in N1 amplitude and a reduction in N1 latency was recorded over the first 59 weeks with the greatest change occurring in the first 8 weeks post implantation. However, N1 latencies recorded from the CI were still significantly longer then when compared to a normal hearing control group [[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]].</p> <p>Binaural hearing benefits which include speech understanding in noise and localization requires cortical representation of both ears. However, as CI for SSD is a new occurrence there is limited research into how the sound delivered through the implant compares to the normal hearing ear at a cortical level. This study was devised to investigate if the SSD CI users are receiving synchronised input at cortical level. Latency of cortical responses obtained from the electrical stimulations will be compared to those obtained from the normal hearing ear. It is hypothesised that better localization ability and better speech understanding in noise will correlate positively to more synchronised cortical activation.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0141212429-4">Subjects</hd> <p>Twenty-nine adults (14 men and 15 women) with acquired post-lingual SSD and CI users, with a CI experience of at least 3 months, were requited for this study. Mean age at testing was 59.8 years ± 14.2 (range 27–81 years). Mean duration of deafness was 8.9 years (range 0.2–41 years) and CI experience 3.2 years (range 0.5–8.7 years).</p> <p>The cause of deafness was; idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (n = 16), Meniere's disease (n = 4), mumps (n = 2), head trauma (n = 1), fistula (n = 1), superior semi-circular canal dehiscence surgery (n = 1), meningitis (n = 1) and unknown (n = 3) (see Table 1 for demographics).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1 Demographic data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">ID</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Age (years)</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Duration of deafness (years)</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Cochlear implant experience (years)</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Sex</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Ear</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Aetiology</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Non-implanted ear</th><th align="center" style="border-bottom:thick">Implanted ear</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">66</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">5.5</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">head trauma</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">90</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">65</td><td align="center">40</td><td align="center">5.5</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">80</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">80</td><td align="center">0.3</td><td align="center">5.4</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">36</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">65</td><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">5.4</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">MD</td><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">70</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">5.1</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">97</td></tr><tr><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">63</td><td align="center">0.4</td><td align="center">5.0</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="center">72</td></tr><tr><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">57</td><td align="center">0.9</td><td align="center">4.6</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">7</td><td align="center">67</td></tr><tr><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">46</td><td align="center">0.3</td><td align="center">4.4</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">fistula</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">49</td><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">4.2</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">72</td></tr><tr><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">81</td><td align="center">1.5</td><td align="center">3.6</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">48</td><td align="center">35</td><td align="center">3.5</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">mumps</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">12</td><td align="center">63</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">3.5</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">MD</td><td align="center">41</td><td align="center">76</td></tr><tr><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">32</td><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">3.4</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">50</td><td align="center">0.6</td><td align="center">2.8</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">unknown</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="center">83</td></tr><tr><td align="center">15</td><td align="center">41</td><td align="center">0.8</td><td align="center">1.8</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">16</td><td align="center">64</td><td align="center">1.5</td><td align="center">1.8</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">19</td><td align="center">83</td></tr><tr><td align="center">17</td><td align="center">60</td><td align="center">41</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">mumps</td><td align="center">16</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">18</td><td align="center">76</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">1.6</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">13</td><td align="center">79</td></tr><tr><td align="center">19</td><td align="center">74</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">1.1</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">85</td></tr><tr><td align="center">20</td><td align="center">52</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">2.2</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">31</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">55</td><td align="center">30</td><td align="center">1.2</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">11</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">22</td><td align="center">75</td><td align="center">0.8</td><td align="center">1.0</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">9</td><td align="center">63</td></tr><tr><td align="center">23</td><td align="center">68</td><td align="center">0.6</td><td align="center">4.3</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">MD</td><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">73</td></tr><tr><td align="center">24</td><td align="center">70</td><td align="center">2.5</td><td align="center">1.1</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">ISSNHL</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">84</td></tr><tr><td align="center">25</td><td align="center">48</td><td align="center">0.2</td><td align="center">1.2</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">Meningitis</td><td align="center">39</td><td align="center">64</td></tr><tr><td align="center">26</td><td align="center">79</td><td align="center">1.4</td><td align="center">0.7</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">SSCD surgery</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">77</td></tr><tr><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">27</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">0.8</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">congenital partial deafness</td><td align="center">35</td><td align="center">83</td></tr><tr><td align="center">28</td><td align="center">50</td><td align="center">5</td><td align="center">0.5</td><td align="center">M</td><td align="center">R</td><td align="center">MD</td><td align="center">14</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr><tr><td align="center">29</td><td align="center">41</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">0.6</td><td align="center">F</td><td align="center">L</td><td align="center">unknown</td><td align="center">10</td><td align="center">NR</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 ISSNHL: Idiopathic Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss, MD: Meniere's Disease, SSCD: Superior semi-circular canal dehiscence.</p> <p>They all were implanted with the MED-EL Standard, FLEXsoft or FLEX [[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]] electrode array and received an OPUS 2, RONDO or SONNET speech processor (MED-EL, Innsbruck, Austria). They use their speech processors on a full-time basis.</p> <p>Ethics approval was obtained from the South Metropolitan Health Ethics Committee (reference number: 335) Subjects have given their written informed consent to participate in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-5">Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs)</hd> <p>CAEPs were recorded using HEARlab™ System (Frye Electronics) with the active electrode at the vertex (Cz), referenced to the mastoid and the forehead set as the ground. Electrode impedance was kept below 5kohms.</p> <p>Four speech tokens /m/, /g/, /t/ and /s/ were presented at 55dB SPL in free-field with the participants seated 1 metre 0° azimuth in front of a loud speaker. The speech signal duration was 30ms for /m/, 21ms for /g/, 30ms for /t/ and 50ms for /t/. Inter stimulus interval was 1125ms, and the minimum number of acceptable epochs for responses to each speech signal was set at 200. Testing for each speech token was terminated automatically when 200 accepted epochs were reached, or manually when the p-value was ≤ 0.05. The time window for the recording was from 200ms before the triggering stimulus (baseline) to 600ms after the stimulus onset. The residual noise level was kept below 3.2 μV. Baseline correction was applied to each individual epoch based on the average over 100ms prior to stimulus onset. HEARLab applies an automatic statistical criterion (Hotelling's T statistical test) to determine the presence or absence of CAEPs [[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>]].</p> <p>N1 and P2 peak latency was calculated. The maximum/minimum values were selected from the time windows of interest (50-150ms post-stimulus for N1 and 150-250ms post-stimulus onset for P2) [[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]].</p> <p>Results were recorded from four different electrode montages:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> CI on, contralateral pathway–reference electrode placed on the mastoid contralateral to the CI side;</item> <p></p> <item> CI on, ipsilateral pathway–reference electrode placed on the mastoid ipsilateral to the CI;</item> <p></p> <item> CI off, contralateral pathway–reference electrode placed on the mastoid contralateral to the normal hearing ear; and</item> <p></p> <item> CI off, ipsilateral pathway–reference electrode placed on the mastoid ipsilateral to the normal hearing ear.</item> </ulist> <p>The CI pathway was tested with the normal hearing ear masked at 70dB HL constant broadband noise presented through an insert earphone. This level of masking has previously been shown to be an effective masker of CAEP [[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]]. CI off pathway was tested with the CI removed.</p> <p>If a N1-P2 complex was not recorded and reprogramming of the CI was needed to provide the participant access to certain speech sound, CAEP potential were reviewed at a maximum of 28 days between after CI programming [[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-6">Speech perception in noise testing</hd> <p>A 3-speaker setup in free field was used with speakers placed 1 metre away at 0°, 90° and -90° to evaluate the hearing performance in noise. The speech material was the Bamford-Kowal-Bench adaptive speech-in-noise test (BKB-SIN) [[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref28">35</reflink>]] which investigates the speech-in-noise ratio needed to repeat 50% of words correctly. Speech was presented at 65dB SPL. Three spatial configurations were used for testing; S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs>, speech and noise presented from the front; S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs>, speech presented from the front and noise presented on the normal hearing ear side; and S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs>, speech presented to the CI and noise presented on the normal hearing side. Speech-in-noise testing compared the CI on condition with the CI off condition.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-7">Localisation</hd> <p>Localisation was measured using the auditory speech sounds evaluation (AδE) localisation test (PJ Govaerts, Antwerp, Belgium). In a soundproof booth, a 4000Hz narrowband sound was simultaneously presented through two speakers placed at 60 and -60 degrees from the subject. The presentation level through each speaker randomly differs creating an interaural level difference (ILD), allowing the illusion of sound to be somewhere on the azimuth between the two speakers. This allowed 13 localisation points (2 true speakers and 11 sham speakers) placed at 10-degree intervals [[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]]. The subjects would report which speaker they thought the sound was coming from, with each response being entered into computer software which calculated the median values and root mean square (RMS), as a measure of a subject's localisation ability. A lower RMS error represents better localisation skills. AδE was used in this study as it relies on ILDs, which is thought to be the binaural cue people with CI's primarily rely on for localisation [[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref30">38</reflink>]].</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-8">Statistical methods</hd> <p>The non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to test for a significant difference between CI on and CI off conditions to examine improvements in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>) localization, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>) speech understanding in noise and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>) CAEPs measurement. The data distribution was checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Missing data were treated as missing values. Because of 4 pairwise comparisons per CAEPs group, the Bonferroni correction method must be used when interpreting the achieved p-values. Hence a p-value ≤0.0125 instead of ≤0.05 is considered as significant.</p> <p>IBM SPSS statistics (IBM, Armonk, New York) was used for the analyses and graphs were created in Microsoft Office Excel 2010 (<ulink href="http://www.microsoft.com/">http://www.microsoft.com/</ulink>).</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0141212429-10">Speech in noise</hd> <p>A Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated that a significant improvement was seen in all three spatial configurations while using the cochlear implant: S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> (Z = -3.066, p<0.002), S0/N<subs>HE</subs> (Z = -4.031, p<0.001), S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (Z = -3.851, p<0.001) see Fig 1. The results of a Multivariate ANOVA indicate that the amount of time someone has a cochlear implant (duration of cochlear implant use) has a significant effect on speech in noise for the S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> (F(1:18) = 6.137; p = 0.023) but no significant difference was seen for S0/N<subs>HE and</subs> S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> conditions <subs>(</subs>S0/N<subs>HE</subs> (F(1:18) = 1.038; p = 0.322, S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (F(1:18) = 0.140; p = 0.712. Duration of deafness prior to implantation did not significantly influence any of the speech in noise configuration results (S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> (F(1:18) = 0.044; p = 0.837, S0/N<subs>HE</subs> (F(1:18) = 0.704; p = 0.0.412, S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (F(1:18) = 0.351; p = 0.561.</p> <p>Graph: Fig 1 Bamford-Kowol-Bench speech-in-noise test results for CI on and CI off conditions from 3 different spatial configurations (S0/N0, S0/NHE and SCI/NHE).</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-11">Localisation</hd> <p>A Wilcoxon signed-rank test determined that significant improvement was achieved when wearing the cochlear implant (p<0.001) as shown in Fig 2. Duration of deafness prior to implantation was correlated with localisation ability (F(1:18) = 6.854; p = 0.017), however, the amount of time the participants had had their implant was not associated with localisation results (F(1:18) = 0.026; p = 0.874).</p> <p>Graph: Fig 2 Mean root mean-square (RMS) error with CI on and CI off.Lower RMS represents better localisation skills.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-12">Cortical responses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0141212429-13">Baseline measure</hd> <p>CAEP measurement from the CI was obtained with the normal hearing ear masked at 70dB HL. Fig 3 shows an example of the recording in which the CI is off and the normal hearing ear is masked with the N1-P2 complex being absent.</p> <p>Graph: Fig 3 Example of CAEP traces for speech tokens /m/, /t/, /g/ and /s/ with CI off and normal hearing ear masked at 70dB HL broadband noise.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-14">Quality of recording</hd> <p>Artefact interference did not influence the quality of the recordings. Fig 4 shows an example of CAEP recordings taken with the CI on and CI off.</p> <p>Graph: Fig 4 Example of CAEP traces from the normal hearing ear and CI.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-15">N1 and P2 latencies</hd> <p>Group average for N1 and P2 latencies were calculated for each speech token. Speech token /m/ consistently had a longer N1and P2 latency compared to /g/, /t/, and /s/ (shown in Figs 5 and 6). N1-P2 latencies obtained from the CI were compared with the corresponding electrode montage from the normal hearing ear (CI ipsilateral pathway compared to Normal hearing ear ipsilateral pathway and CI contralateral pathway compared to Normal hearing ear contralateral pathway).</p> <p>Graph: Fig 5 Latencies (ms) recorded for N1 from four different electrode montages for each speech token.Median values are the horizontal line, mean value as the black x.</p> <p>Graph: Fig 6 Latencies (ms) recorded for P2 from four different electrode montages for each speech token.Median values are the horizontal line, mean value as the black x.</p> <p>Participants were split into three groups; <2years CI experience, 2-5years CI experience and >5years CI experience. Using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, significant difference years CI experience was seen when comparing P2 ipsilateral pathway for speech token /m/ (p = 0.042) for the group who had >5years and when comparing speech token /t/ for P2 contralateral pathway as shown in Table 2. Fig 5 illustrates similar distribution patterns between each electrode montage for all participants for each of the speech tokens. Speech tokens /g/ and /t/ produced stable results. Speech token /m/ elicited greater variability in recordings from the CI while less recordings were elicited by speech token /s/ from both the CI and normal hearing ear.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2 Wilcoxon signed-rank test showing the difference between CI-on and CI-off.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2">CI experience</th><th align="center">N1_Contra with CI-off—N1_Contra with CI-on</th><th align="center">P2_Contra with CI-off—P2_Contrawith CI-on</th><th align="center">N1_Ipsi with CI-off—N1_Ipsi with CI-on</th><th align="center">P2_Ipsi with CI-off—P2_Ipsi with CI-on</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="6">/m/</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">< 2 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-1.379</td><td align="center">-1.245</td><td align="center">-.866</td><td align="center">-.801</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.168</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.213</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.386</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.423</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">2 to 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.510</td><td align="center">-1.682</td><td align="center">-1.377</td><td align="center">-1.362</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.610</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.093</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.169</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.173</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">> 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.169</td><td align="center">-.423</td><td align="center">-.135</td><td align="center">-2.032</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.866</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.672</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.893</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.042<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6">/t/</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">< 2 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.979</td><td align="center">-.802</td><td align="center">-.578</td><td align="center">-.757</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.327</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.423</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.563</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.449</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">2 to 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-1.380</td><td align="center">-2.245</td><td align="center">-1.472</td><td align="center">-.314</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.168</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.025<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.141</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.753</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">> 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.841</td><td align="center">-.943</td><td align="center">-.365</td><td align="center">-1.826</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.400</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.345</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.715</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.068</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6">/g/</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">< 2 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-1.201</td><td align="center">-.051</td><td align="center">-.622</td><td align="center">-1.247</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.230</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.959</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.534</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.212</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">2 to 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.766</td><td align="center">.000</td><td align="center">-1.173</td><td align="center">-1.376</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.444</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">1.000</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.241</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.169</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">> 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.676</td><td align="center">-.507</td><td align="center">-1.214</td><td align="center">-1.214</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.499</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.612</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.225</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.225</td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="6">/s/</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">< 2 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.254</td><td align="center">-.338</td><td align="center">-1.185</td><td align="center">-1.355</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.799</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.735</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.236</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.176</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">2 to 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-.135</td><td align="center">-.813</td><td align="center">-.135</td><td align="center">.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.893</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.416</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.893</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">1.000</td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="2" style="background-color:#E0E0E0">> 5 yrs</td><td align="left">Z</td><td align="center">-1.826</td><td align="center">-1.604</td><td align="center">-1.604</td><td align="center">-1.604</td></tr><tr><td align="left" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">p-values (2-sided)</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.068</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.109</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.109</td><td align="center" style="background-color:#D9D9D9">.109</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 *significant difference between CI-on and CI-off.</p> <p>The difference in latency for N1 and P2 between the CI and normal hearing ear (for both the ipsilateral and contralateral pathways) for each speech token was calculated. A Pearson's correlation found no relationship between latency difference and localisation improvement (ipsilateral pathway p = 0.091 to p = 0.992; contralateral pathway p = 0.096 to p = 0.909). A larger difference in N1 latency recorded from speech token /m/, when comparing the contralateral pathways, correlated with an increased SiN improvement for S0/N<subs>HE</subs> (p = 0.002) and S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (p = 0.036). Increased N1 latency difference recorded from speech token /s/ ipsilateral pathways correlated with SiN improvement for the S0/N<subs>HE</subs> (p = 0.033) paradigm. No other significant correlation was found.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-16">Discussion</hd> <p>Cochlear implants have been used to rehabilitate severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss for over 30 years. With improvements in technology and surgical techniques the outcomes have improved over time and the candidacy criteria expanded substantially over the years. As CI candidacy evolves we are seeing impressive functional outcomes from the SSD population where the brain integrates the electrical stimulation from one auditory pathway with the normal acoustic stimulation from the normal hearing ear to achieve binaural hearing benefit. These benefits include better speech understanding in noise and localisation.</p> <p>CAEPs have been widely used to evaluate the benefit of cochlear implants in young children where speech perception testing cannot be performed. In our centre, CAEPs have been introduced as a tool to evaluate optimal fitting of CI in SSD users [[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>]]. It is expected that if we provide speech detection at a cortical level we may facilitate the progress post-CI in terms of speech understanding. However, the question this study aims to answer is if there is a difference between the normal hearing ear and the electrical stimulation for speech detection at a cortical level.</p> <p>Localisation relies on binaural cues (interaural level difference–ILD and time differences–ITD), with auditory neurons becoming sensitive to binaural cues in early development [[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]]. ILD is dependent on the amount of excitation received from each ear, therefore the degree of asymmetrical hearing reduces the sensitivity of localisation [[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref36">40</reflink>]]. In this study, a significant (p<0.001) improvement in localization ability was found in the CI-on scenario compared to the CI-off condition suggesting the restoration of binaural ILDs. Of note is that duration of deafness before cochlear implantation was associated with the degree of improvement, with a shorter duration of deafness before implantation significantly correlating to improved localisation ability. However, within our demographic, our long duration of deafness participants also lost their hearing early in life making it difficult to separate whether the primary factor influencing localisation ability is the duration of deafness or the age of onset of SSD. We also found that cochlear implant experience did not correlate with localisation ability. This supports findings from Grantham et al (2007) who found no change in localisation ability in bilateral implantees who had their cochlear implant for 5 months compared to being tested at 15 months [[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]].</p> <p>Binaural input improves speech understanding in noise by binaural squelch and summation. The squelch effect is the ability of the brain to selectively filter noise from the desired sound, more so when noise and speech are in different azimuthal or vertical locations due to differing inter-aural phase and time differences [[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref38">41</reflink>]], for CI users these timing and phase cues are largely unavailable. In normal-hearing individuals the advantage of binaural squelch for speech in noise is a 2-5dB gain in signal to noise ratio (SNR) [[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]]. Binaural summation is a phenomenon where sound is perceived louder when listening with two ears compared to listening with one. People with SSD are disadvantaged when sound is projected directly to their non-hearing ear, due to the physical barrier of their head. This is called the head shadow effect and can attenuate sound by 10-16dB [[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>]]. We found a significant improvement over all speech in noise configurations S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> (p = 0.002), S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (p<0.001), and S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> (p<0.001) with an improvement in SNR of 1.76 ± 2.4 for S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs>, 3.02 ± 2.6 for S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> and 4.89 ± 5.0 S<subs>CI</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs>. These results indicate that the electrical signal received from the implanted ear integrates with the opposite acoustic sound in the normal hearing ear to provide binaural hearing benefit. Our findings are in line with published literature, Friedman et al (2016) using a cohort of 9 adults with acquired SSD found an improvement in SNR of 2dB ±0.8 for S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> and 4.6dB ± for S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>HE</subs> speech in noise configurations after CI [[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>]]. Rahne et al (2016) found an improvement in speech reception threshold in noise as early as 3 months after implantation [[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref42">44</reflink>]].</p> <p>Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the amount of improvement seen in the S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> condition is correlated to the amount of time that the participant had their implant (F(1;18) = 6.137; p = 0.023). S<subs>0</subs>/N<subs>0</subs> speech in noise testing relies on binaural summation to provide an advantage, which with time and reestablishment of the neural pathway through the CI stimulation provides this summation benefit. Litovsky et al (2018) found no significant summation effect after implantation in their cohort of 6 SSD adult participants when using the AzBIO sentence test with a SNR of 0dB [[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]]. Our results differ from this, showing a summation effect present as early as 3 months post implantation, with larger improvements seen in participants who have a longer duration of CI experience. One explanation for such difference is that in our study, by using the adaptive BKB-SiN speech test tracking the 50% correct point on the psychometric function, we were able to measure smaller improvements using a more sensitive testing modality.</p> <p>The presence of CAEPs to speech stimuli provides an objective indication of the subject's ability to access speech sounds. By using the speech tokens /m/, /t/, /g/ and /s/ it ensures that sound information is obtained over the entire speech spectrum. Using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, cortical auditory evoked latencies from N1 and P2 revealed no significant difference between responses recorded from the cochlear implant and normal hearing ear, as shown in Fig 3. Although this does not provide information on whether the brain processes sound differently (between the electrical stimulation of a CI and acoustic in the normal-hearing ear) it does indicate that sound is received at the primary auditory cortex simultaneously, providing the framework for binaural hearing. Initially, a mismatch was expected due to the difference in how auditory information is provided to the auditory nerve. Previous studies support our results which show a strong correlation between CAEP latencies and speech perception scores [[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref44">46</reflink>]]. Legris et al (2018) recorded cortical changes from nine SSD individuals who had received a CI, using a loud speaker to present a /ba/ sound simultaneously to the normal hearing ear and CI, this was then compared to a normal hearing cohort. They observed increased bilateral cortical activation which, coupled with an improvement in functional speech in noise testing, may indicate the restoration of binaural cortical function[[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref45">47</reflink>]]. Cortical responses obtained from the CI in this study further support these findings, coupled with the improvement in speech in noise and localisation. However, our methodology compares CAEPs recorded from the CI to responses from the normal hearing ear making each participant their own control.</p> <p>When comparing the individual latency differences, we see that the speech tokens /g/ and /t/ produced a large number of significant responses with reduced variability compared to /m/ and /s/ (between CI on and CI off). The stimulus /m/ produced an increased number of variable cases, which is consistent with Kosaner et al (2018) who found that CAEPs produced by /m/ speech tokens were significantly less present and produced longer latencies compared to those recorded from /t/ and /g/ in children who had received a CI for congenital bilateral deafness. [[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]] Although there was no significant difference in N1 and P2 group average latencies, a reduced number of recordings were available when using the /s/ speech token. This could be due to our inclusion criteria where the four-frequency average (500Hz, 1kHz, 2kHz and 4kHz) of the good ear must be equal to or under 25dBHL. In some cases, there was a high frequency hearing loss preventing the generation of a cortical response when the CI was off. Our initial hypothesis was that individuals with a long duration of deafness before implantation would explain the individual variability in latency (with the individuals with a long duration of deafness contributing to the outliers who had a large latency difference between CI on and CI off) however, no trend was found.</p> <p>All participants in this study were born with bilateral hearing, which leads to the assumption of established bilateral auditory pathways with normal cortical organisation until the onset of SSD. Unlike congenital bilateral deafness, duration of SSD did not influence N1-P2 latencies. This supports our previous findings, which suggest that cortical reorganisation and reactivation of auditory pathways to the auditory cortex can occur in adulthood even after many years of hearing loss or deafness, indicating that the presence of an established binaural auditory pathway is the main determinant of CI outcomes in the SSD population and not duration of SSD.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-17">Study limitations</hd> <p>In this study, auditory stimuli were delivered in free field via a loud speaker. Although masking of the normal hearing ear produces no significant cortical auditory evoked activity, we cannot be sure that masking has not added to the neural activation when the CI was on.</p> <p>The CI users in this study have varied CI experience and therefore we are not able to report on when their was no significant difference between CAEP latencies of the CI and NHe.</p> <p>No significant difference in P2 latency was found when comparing cortical latencies from the CI to the normal hearing ear. As P2 latency has been shown to correlate with CI speech performance, further research to evaluate the CI alone performance and the correlation or lack of P2 latency in SSD would be beneficial. Due to the scope of this paper [[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]]individual ear speech testing was not investigated.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>Cortical auditory evoked response latencies recorded from the CI and NHe showed no significant difference, indicating that the detection of sound in the auditory cortex occurred simultaneously, providing the cortex with auditory information for binaural hearing.</p> <hd id="AN0141212429-19">Supporting information</hd> <p>S1 Fig.</p> <p>(DOCX)</p> <ref id="AN0141212429-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The authors have declared no competing interests exist.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0141212429-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Dillon H. Hearing Aids. 1 ed. Norwood: Boomerang Press; 2002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Van de Heyning P, Vermeire K, Diebl M, Nopp P, Anderson I, De Ridder D. Incapacitating unilateral tinnitus in single-sided deafness treated by cochlear implantation. Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology. 2008; 117(9):645–652.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref33" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Palau EM, Gil JLM, Vidal CM, González JCF, Cabrera OA, Macías ÁR. Tinnitus and cochlear implantation. Preliminary experience. Acta Otorrinolaringologica (English Edition). 2010; 61(6):405–411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Punte AK, Vermeire K, Hofkens A, De Bodt M, De Ridder D, Van de Heyning P. Cochlear implantation as a durable tinnitus treatment in single-sided deafness. Cochlear implants international. 2011; 12(sup1):S26–S29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ramos Á, Polo R, Masgoret E, et al. Cochlear implant in patients with sudden unilateral sensorineural hearing loss and associated tinnitus. Acta Otorrinolaringologica (English Edition). 2012; 63(1):15–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref4" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Vermeire K, Van de Heyning P. Binaural hearing after cochlear implantation in subjects with unilateral sensorineural deafness and tinnitus. Audiology and Neurotology. 2009; 14(3):163–171. doi: 10.1159/000171478, 19005250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Távora-Vieira D, Marino R, Acharya A, Rajan GP. The impact of cochlear implantation on speech understanding, subjective hearing performance, and tinnitus perception in patients with unilateral severe to profound hearing loss. Otology & Neurotology. 2015; 36(3):430–436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Arndt S, Aschendorff A, Laszig R, et al. Comparison of pseudobinaural hearing to real binaural hearing rehabilitation after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral deafness and tinnitus. Otology & neurotology. 2011; 32(1):39–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Firszt JB, Holden LK, Reeder RM, Waltzman SB, Arndt S. Auditory abilities after cochlear implantation in adults with unilateral deafness: a pilot study. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. 2012; 33(8):1339.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buechner A, Brendel M, Lesinski-Schiedat A, et al. Cochlear implantation in unilateral deaf subjects associated with ipsilateral tinnitus. Otology & Neurotology. 2010; 31(9):1381–1385.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stelzig Y, Jacob R, Mueller J. Preliminary speech recognition results after cochlear implantation in patients with unilateral hearing loss: a case series. Journal of medical case reports. 2011; 5(1):343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prejban DA, Hamzavi J-S, Arnoldner C, et al. Single Sided Deaf Cochlear Implant Users in the Difficult Listening Situation: Speech Perception and Subjective Benefit. Otology & Neurotology. 2018; 39(9):e803–e809.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mertens G, De Bodt M, Van de Heyning P. Evaluation of long-term cochlear implant use in subjects with acquired unilateral profound hearing loss: focus on binaural auditory outcomes. Ear and hearing. 2017; 38(1):117–125. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000359, 27513880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Távora-Vieira D, Rajan GP, de Heyning Van P, Mertens G. Evaluating the Long-Term Hearing Outcomes of Cochlear Implant Users With Single-Sided Deafness. Otology & neurotology: official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. 2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blamey P, Arndt P, Bergeron F, et al. Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. Audiology and Neurotology. 1996; 1(5):293–306. doi: 10.1159/000259212, 9390810</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavora-Vieira D, Boisvert I, McMahon CM, Maric V, Rajan GP. Successful outcomes of cochlear implantation in long-term unilateral deafness: brain plasticity?Neuroreport. 2013; 24(13):724–729. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e3283642a93, 23880870</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arndt S, Laszig R, Aschendorff A, Hassepass F, Beck R, Wesarg T. Cochlear implant treatment of patients with single-sided deafness or asymmetric hearing lossCochlea-Implantat-Versorgung von Patienten mit einseitiger Taubheit oder asymmetrischem Hörverlust. HNO. 2017; 65(2):98–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boisvert I, McMahon CM, Dowell RC. Long-term monaural auditory deprivation and bilateral cochlear implants. Neuroreport. 2012; 23(3):195–199. doi: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32834fab4b, 22182978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedland DR, Venick HS, Niparko JK. Choice of ear for cochlear implantation: the effect of history and residual hearing on predicted postoperative performance. Otology & Neurotology. 2003; 24(4):582–589.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis HW, Yeagle JD, Bowditch S, Niparko JK. Cochlear implant outcome is not influenced by the choice of ear. Ear and hearing. 2005; 26(4):7S–16S.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boisvert I, McMahon CM, Tremblay G, Lyxell B. Relative importance of monaural sound deprivation and bilateral significant hearing loss in predicting cochlear implantation outcomes. Ear and hearing. 2011; 32(6):758–766. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182234c45, 21750463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2005; 116(3):648–657. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.09.009, 15721079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2005; 116(6):1235–1246. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.02.011, 15978485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pantev C, Dinnesen A, Ross B, Wollbrink A, Knief A. Dynamics of auditory plasticity after cochlear implantation: a longitudinal study. Cerebral cortex. 2005; 16(1):31–36. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhi081, 15843632</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Han J-H, Zhang F, Kadis DS, et al. Auditory cortical activity to different voice onset times in cochlear implant users. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2016; 127(2):1603–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.10.049, 26616545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groenen PA, Beynon AJ, Snik AF, Broek Pvd. Speech-evoked cortical potentials recognition in cochlear implant users and speech. Scandinavian audiology. 2001; 30(1):31–40. doi: 10.1080/010503901750069554, 11330917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timm L, Agrawal D, Viola FC, et al. Temporal feature perception in cochlear implant users. PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e45375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045375, 23028971</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong Y, Melara RD, Rao A. P2 enhancement from auditory discrimination training is associated with improved reaction times. Brain research. 2009; 1297:80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2009.07.089, 19651109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay KL, Shahin AJ, Picton T, Ross B. Auditory training alters the physiological detection of stimulus-specific cues in humans. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2009; 120(1):128–135. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.10.005, 19028139</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tremblay KL, Kraus N. Auditory training induces asymmetrical changes in cortical neural activity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2002; 45(3):564–572. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/045), 12069008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandmann P, Plotz K, Hauthal N, de Vos M, Schönfeld R, Debener S. Rapid bilateral improvement in auditory cortex activity in postlingually deafened adults following cochlear implantation. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2015; 126(3):594–607. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.06.029, 25065298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golding M, Dillon H, Seymour J, Carter L. The detection of adult cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) using an automated statistic and visual detection. In: Taylor & Francis; 2009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carter L, Dillon H, Seymour J, Seeto M, Van Dun B. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2013; 24(9):807–822. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.24.9.5, 24224988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Távora-Vieira D, Wedekind A, Marino R, Purdy SC, Rajan GP. Using aided cortical assessment as an objective tool to evaluate cochlear implant fitting in users with single-sided deafness. PloS one. 2018; 13(2):e0193081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193081, 29470548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bench J, Kowal Å, Bamford J. The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. British journal of audiology. 1979; 13(3):108–112. doi: 10.3109/03005367909078884, 486816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Távora-Vieira D, Rajan GP. Cochlear implantation in children with congenital and noncongenital unilateral deafness: a case series. Otology & Neurotology. 2015; 36(2):235–239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Távora-Vieira D, De Ceulaer G, Govaerts PJ, Rajan GP. Cochlear implantation improves localization ability in patients with unilateral deafness. Ear and hearing. 2015; 36(3):e93–e98. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000130, 25474416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grantham DW, Ashmead DH, Ricketts TA, Labadie RF, Haynes DS. Horizontal-plane localization of noise and speech signals by postlingually deafened adults fitted with bilateral cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing. 2007; 28(4):524–541. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31806dc21a, 17609614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brugge JF, Reale RA, Wilson GF. Sensitivity of auditory cortical neurons of kittens to monaural and binaural high frequency sound. Hearing research. 1988; 34(2):127–140. doi: 10.1016/0378-5955(88)90100-1, 3170355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kral A, Hubka P, Tillein J. Strengthening of hearing ear representation reduces binaural sensitivity in early single-sided deafness. Audiology and Neurotology. 2015; 20(Suppl. 1):7–12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawley ML, Litovsky RY, Culling JF. The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 2004; 115(2):833–843. doi: 10.1121/1.1639908, 15000195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arsenault MD, Punch JL. Nonsense-syllable recognition in noise using monaural and binaural listening strategies. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1999; 105(3):1821–1830. doi: 10.1121/1.426720, 10089605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedmann DR, Ahmed OH, McMenomey SO, Shapiro WH, Waltzman SB, Roland JT Jr. Single-sided deafness cochlear implantation: candidacy, evaluation, and outcomes in children and adults. Otology & Neurotology. 2016; 37(2):e154–e160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rahne T, Plontke SK. Functional result after cochlear implantation in children and adults with single-sided deafness. Otology & Neurotology. 2016; 37(9):e332–e340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Litovsky RY, Moua K, Godar S, Kan A, Misurelli SM, Lee DJ. Restoration of spatial hearing in adult cochlear implant users with single-sided deafness. Hearing research. 2018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Change in speech perception and auditory evoked potentials over time after unilateral cochlear implantation in postlingually deaf adults. Paper presented at: Seminars in hearing2016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Legris E, Galvin J, Roux S, et al. Cortical reorganization after cochlear implantation for adults with single-sided deafness. PloS one. 2018; 13(9):e0204402. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204402, 30248131</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kosaner J, Van Dun B, Yigit O, Gultekin M, Bayguzina S. Clinically recorded cortical auditory evoked potentials from paediatric cochlear implant users fitted with electrically elicited stapedius reflex thresholds. International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. 2018; 108:100–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.02.033, 29605337</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Andre Wedekind; Gunesh Rajan; Bram Van Dun and Dayse Távora-Vieira</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref46"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://resolver.ebsco.com/c/xy5jbn/result?sid=EBSCO:edsdoj&genre=article&issn=19326203&ISBN=&volume=15&issue=1&date=20200101&spage=e0227371&pages=&title=PLoS ONE&atitle=Restoration%20of%20cortical%20symmetry%20and%20binaural%20function%3A%20Cortical%20auditory%20evoked%20responses%20in%20adult%20cochlear%20implant%20users%20with%20single%20sided%20deafness.&aulast=Andre%20Wedekind&id=DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0227371
    Name: Full Text Finder (for New FTF UI) (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: Find It @ SCU Libraries
    MouseOverText: Find It @ SCU Libraries
  – Url: https://doaj.org/article/aa8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
    Name: EDS - DOAJ (s8985755)
    Category: fullText
    Text: View record from DOAJ
    MouseOverText: View record from DOAJ
Header DbId: edsdoj
DbLabel: Directory of Open Access Journals
An: edsdoj.8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
RelevancyScore: 905
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 905.017944335938
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andre+Wedekind%22">Andre Wedekind</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gunesh+Rajan%22">Gunesh Rajan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bram+Van+Dun%22">Bram Van Dun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dayse+Távora-Vieira%22">Dayse Távora-Vieira</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: PLoS ONE, Vol 15, Iss 1, p e0227371 (2020)
– Name: Publisher
  Label: Publisher Information
  Group: PubInfo
  Data: Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2020.
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Year
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: Subset
  Label: Collection
  Group: HoldingsInfo
  Data: LCC:Medicine<br />LCC:Science
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medicine%22">Medicine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science%22">Science</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Description
  Group: Ab
  Data: BACKGROUND:Cochlear implantation for single-sided deafness (SSD) is the only treatment option with the potential to restore binaural hearing cues. Significant binaural benefit has been measured in adults by speech in noise and localisation tests, who receive a cochlear implant for SSD, however, little is known on the cortical changes that help provide this benefit. In the present study, detection of sound in the auditory cortex, speech testing and localisation was used to investigate the ability of a cochlear implant (CI) to restore auditory cortical latencies and improve binaural benefit in the adult SSD population. METHODS:Twenty-nine adults with acquired single-sided deafness who received a CI in adulthood were studied. Speech perception in noise was tested using the Bamford-Kowal-Bench speech-in-noise test, localisation ability was measured using the auditory speech sounds evaluation (AδE) localisation test and cortical auditory evoked responses, comparing N1-P2 latencies recorded from the normal hearing ear and cochlear implant were used to investigate the synchrony of the cortical pathway from the CI and normal hearing ear (NHe) with binaural hearing function. RESULTS:There was a significant improvement in speech perception in noise in all spatial configurations S0/N0 (Z = -3.066, p
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: article
– Name: Format
  Label: File Description
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: electronic resource
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1932-6203
– Name: NoteTitleSource
  Label: Relation
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: https://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227371
– Name: URL
  Label: Access URL
  Group: URL
  Data: <link linkTarget="URL" linkTerm="https://doaj.org/article/aa8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2" linkWindow="_blank">https://doaj.org/article/aa8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2</link>
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: edsdoj.8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
PLink https://login.libproxy.scu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&scope=site&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.8a34080a9d4bda911855e120d7a1e2
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227371
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        StartPage: e0227371
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Medicine
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Restoration of cortical symmetry and binaural function: Cortical auditory evoked responses in adult cochlear implant users with single sided deafness.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andre Wedekind
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gunesh Rajan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bram Van Dun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dayse Távora-Vieira
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 19326203
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 15
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: PLoS ONE
              Type: main
ResultId 1