This difference disappeared in 10 childrenwith implants at the third and sixth months, but significant differences remained in 6 children.Conclusion: P1 latency could be used as an objective tool to evaluate the normal development of auditory pathways, and may be helpfulin the effective programming of children undergoing cochlear implantation.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The aim of this study was to determine the age-related latency interval of P1 latencies of children with normalhearing, and to evaluate the P1 latency changes after surgery in children who underwent cochlear implantation.Materials and methods: We evaluated 60 children with normal hearing and 16 children with cochlear implants aged 0–6 years usingcortical auditory evoked potentials.
📊
Key Findings & Data:P1 latencies were measured only once in the children with normal hearing, and on the postoperativefirst day, and the first, third, and sixth postoperative months in the children with cochlear implants.Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in the P1 latencies as the age increased in children with normal hearing (P < 0.001).It was determined that when the external partof the cochlear implant was applied, the P1 latencies of children with cochlear implantswere significantly longer than those of age-matched children with normal hearing (P < 0.001).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This difference disappeared in 10 childrenwith implants at the third and sixth months, but significant differences remained in 6 children.Conclusion: P1 latency could be used as an objective tool to evaluate the normal development of auditory pathways, and may be helpfulin the effective programming of children undergoing cochlear implantation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Background/aim: The aim of this study was to determine the age-related latency interval of P1 latencies of children with normalhearing, and to evaluate the P1 latency changes after surgery in children who underwent cochlear implantation.Materials and methods: We evaluated 60 children with normal hearing and 16 children with cochlear implants aged 0–6 years usingcortical auditory evoked potentials. P1 latencies were measured only once in the children with normal hearing, and on the postoperativefirst day, and the first, third, and sixth postoperative months in the children with cochlear implants.Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in the P1 latencies as the age increased in children with normal hearing (P < 0.001).It was determined that when the external partof the cochlear implant was applied, the P1 latencies of children with cochlear implantswere significantly longer than those of age-matched children with normal hearing (P < 0.001). This difference disappeared in 10 childrenwith implants at the third and sixth months, but significant differences remained in 6 children.Conclusion: P1 latency could be used as an objective tool to evaluate the normal development of auditory pathways, and may be helpfulin the effective programming of children undergoing cochlear implantation.
🔖
Cite This Article
ESKİCİOĞLU, E., KIRKIM, G., GÜRKAN, S., DURANKAYA, S. M., BAŞOKÇU, T. O., GÜNERİ, E. A. (2022). Changes in P1 latencies of children with normal hearing and those with cochlear implants. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 50 - Sayı: 4, 1062–1068. https://ajindex.com/articles/610054
Ponton CW, Don M. Cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded from cochlear implant users: methods and applications. In: Cullington H. (editors). Cochlear implants objective measures. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Whurr Publishing; 2003. pp. 187-230
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 3. Dorman MF, Sharma A, Gilley P, Martin K, Roland P. Central auditory development: evidence from CAEP measurements in children fit with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders 2007; 40 (4): 284-294. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2007.03.007 4. Romero ACL, Frizzo ACF, Chagas EFB, Isaac ML. Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 2019; 1808-8694 (18): 751-761. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.01.007 5. Sharma A, Campbell J, Cardon G. Developmental and crossmodal plasticity in deafness: evidence from the P1 and N1 event related potentials in cochlear implanted children. International Journal of Psychophysiology 2015; 95 (2): 135- 144. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.04.007 6. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. Rapid development of cortical auditory evoked potentials after early cochlear implantation. Neuroreport 2002b; 13 (10): 1365-1368
Calderon R, Naidu S. Further support for the benefits of early identification and intervention for children with hearing loss. Volta Review 1999; 100 (5): 53-84
Kral A, Hartmann R, Tillein J, Heid S, Klinke R. Delayed maturation and sensitive periods in the auditory cortex. Audiology and Neurootology 2001; 6 (6): 346-362. doi: 10.1159/000046845 9. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear and Hearing 2002a; 23 (6): 532-539. doi: 10.1097/00003446- 200212000-00004 10. Tomblin JB, Barker BA, Spencer LJ, Zhang X, Gantz BJ. The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research 2005; 48 (5): 853-867. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2005/059
Kuhl PK, Williams KA, Lacerda F, Stevens KN, Lindblom B. Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age. Science 1992; 255 (5044): 606-608. doi: 10.1126/ science.1736364 12. Mehta K, Watkin P, Baldwin M, Marri