Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
Iranian Journal of Child Neurology,
Vol. 16 No. 2 (2022),
Many studies have suggested that Cochlear Implant (CI) users vary in terms of speech recognition in noise. Studies in this field attribute this variety partly to subcortical auditory processing. Since study on speech-Auditory Brainstem Response (speech-ABR) provides good information about speech processing, so this work was designed to compare speech-ABR components between two groups of CI users with good and poor speech recognition in noise scores.
Materials & Methods
The present study was conducted on two groups of CI users aged 8-10 years old. The first group (CI-good) consisted of 15 children prelingual CI users who had good speech recognition in noise performance. The second group (CI-poor) matched with the first group, but they had poor speech recognition in noise performance. The speech-ABR test in a sound-field presentation was performed for all the participants.
The speech-ABR response showed more delay in C, D, E, F, O latencies in CI-poor than CI-good users (P <0.05), meanwhile no significant difference was observed in initial wave (V(t= -0.293, p= 0.771 and A(t= -1.051, p= 0.307). Analysis in spectral-domain showed a weaker representation of fundamental frequency as well as the first formant and high-frequency component of speech stimuli in the CI-poor users.
ConclusionsResults revealed that CI users who showed poor auditory performance in noise performance had deficits in encoding of periodic portion of speech signals at brainstem level. Also, this study could be as physiological evidence for poorer pitch processing in CI users with poor speech recognition in noise performance.
- Cochlear Implant
- Auditory Brainstem Response
- Speech Perception
How to Cite
Gabr TA, Hassaan MR. Speech processing in children with cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015;12:2028-34.
Caldwell A, Nittrouer S. Speech perception in noise by children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013.;56(1):13-30
Smiljanic R, Sladen D. Acoustic and semantic enhancements for children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013.56(4):1085-96
Finke M, Büchner A, Ruigendijk E, Meyer M, Sandmann P. On the relationship between auditory cognition and speech intelligibility in cochlear implant users: An ERP study. Neuropsychologia 2016 169-81.
Heman-Ackah SE, Roland JT, Haynes DS, Waltzman SB. Pediatric cochlear implantation: candidacy evaluation, medical and surgical considerations, and expanding criteria. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2012;1:41-67.
Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. The scalp‐recorded brainstem response to speech: Neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 2010;2:236-46.
Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children. Hear Res 2012;1-2:52-8.
Kraus N, Chandrasekaran B. Music training for the development of auditory skills. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010;8:599.
Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Zecker S, Kraus N. Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children. Hear Res 2010;1-2:151-7.
Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow A, Kraus N. Neurobiologic responses to speech in noise in children with learning problems: deficits and strategies for improvement. Neurophysiol Clin 2001;5:758-67.
Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates. J Cogn Neurosci 2011;9:2268-79.
Omidvar S, Jafari Z, Tahaei AA, Salehi M. Comparison of auditory temporal resolution between monolingual Persian and bilingual Turkish-Persian individuals. Int J Audiol 2013;:e42817.
Mahdavi ME, Pourbakht A, Parand A, Jalaie S, Rezaeian M, Moradiju E. Auditory recognition of words and digits in multitalker babble in learning-disabled children with dichotic listening deficit. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2017;4.
Akhoun I, Moulin A, Jeanvoine A, Ménard M, Buret F, Vollaire C, et al. Speech auditory brainstem response (speech ABR) characteristics depending on recording conditions, and hearing status: an experimental parametric study. J Neurosci Methods 2008;2:196-205.
Luo X, Galvin III JJ, Fu Q-J. Effects of stimulus duration on amplitude modulation processing with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am 2010;127(2):EL23-9.
Krishnan A. Human frequency-following responses: representation of steady-state synthetic vowels. Hear Res 2002;1-2:192-201.
Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour JT, Cariani PA. Human frequency-following response: representation of pitch contours in Chinese tones. Hear Res 2004;1-2:1-12.
Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010;3:302.
Sinha SK, Basavaraj V. Speech evoked auditory brainstem responses: a new tool to study brainstem encoding of speech sounds. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;4:395-9.
Ahadi M, Pourbakht A, Jafari AH, Shirjian Z, Jafarpisheh AS. Gender disparity in subcortical encoding of binaurally presented speech stimuli: an auditory evoked potentials study. Auris Nasus Larynx 2014;3:239-43.
Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009;106(31):13022-7
Ahissar M. Dyslexia and the anchoring-deficit hypothesis. Trends Cogn Sci 2007;11:458-65.
Johnson JA, Zatorre RJ. Attention to simultaneous unrelated auditory and visual events: behavioral and neural correlates. Cereb Cortex 2005;10:1609-20.
Hill KT, Miller LM. Auditory attentional control and selection during cocktail party listening. Cereb Cortex 2009;3:583-90.
Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N. Test–retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Neurophysiol Clin 2011;2:346-55.
Banai K, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Kraus N. Brainstem timing: implications for cortical processing and literacy. J Neurosci 2005;43:9850-7.
Chadha NK, Papsin BC, Jiwani S, Gordon KA. Speech detection in noise and spatial unmasking in children with simultaneous versus sequential bilateral cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2011;7:1057-64.
- Abstract Viewed: 208 times
- pdf Downloaded: 0 times