scholarly journals Role of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Reducing the Age at Hearing Aid Fitting in Children With Hearing Loss Identified by Newborn Hearing Screening

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 233121651774409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kinjal Mehta ◽  
Peter Watkin ◽  
Margaret Baldwin ◽  
Josephine Marriage ◽  
Merle Mahon ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amineh Koravand ◽  
Benoît Jutras ◽  
Maryse Lassonde

Objective. This study examined the patterns of neural activity in the central auditory system in children with hearing loss.Methods. Cortical potentials and mismatch responses (MMRs) were recorded from ten children aged between 9 and 10 years: five with hearing loss and five with normal hearing in passive oddball paradigms using verbal and nonverbal stimuli.Results. Results indicate a trend toward larger P1 amplitude, a significant reduction in amplitude, and latency of N2 in children with hearing loss compared to control. No significant group differences were observed for the majority of the MMRs conditions.Conclusions. Data suggest that the reduced auditory input affects the pattern of cortical-auditory-evoked potentials in children with a mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Results suggest maturational delays and/or deficits in central auditory processing in children with hearing loss, as indicated by the neurophysiological markers P1 and N2. In contrast, negative MMR data suggest that the amplification provided by the hearing aids could have allowed children with hearing loss to develop adequate discriminative abilities.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (09) ◽  
pp. 807-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lyndal Carter ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
John Seymour ◽  
Mark Seeto ◽  
Bram Van Dun

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) can be reliably elicited in response to speech stimuli in listeners wearing hearing aids. It is unclear, however, how close to the aided behavioral threshold (i.e., at what behavioral sensation level) a sound must be before a cortical response can reliably be detected. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the relationship between CAEP detection and the audibility of speech sounds (as measured behaviorally), when the listener is wearing a hearing aid fitted to prescriptive targets. A secondary aim was to investigate whether CAEP detection is affected by varying the frequency emphasis of stimuli, so as to simulate variations to the prescribed gain-frequency response of a hearing aid. The results have direct implications for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings in nonresponsive adult clients, and indirect implications for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings in infants. Research Design: Participants wore hearing aids while listening to speech sounds presented in a sound field. Aided thresholds were measured, and cortical responses evoked, under a range of stimulus conditions. The presence or absence of CAEPs was determined by an automated statistic. Study Sample: Participants were adults (6 females and 4 males). Participants had sensorineural hearing loss ranging from mild to severe-profound in degree. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants' own hearing aids were replaced with a test hearing aid, with linear processing, during assessments. Pure-tone thresholds and hearing aid gain measurements were obtained, and a theoretical prediction of speech stimulus audibility for each participant (similar to those used for audibility predictions in infant hearing aid fittings) was calculated. Three speech stimuli, (/m/, /t/, and /g/) were presented aided (monaurally, nontest ear occluded), free field, under three conditions (+4 dB/octave, −4 dB/octave, and without filtering), at levels of 40, 50, and 60 dB SPL (measured for the unfiltered condition). Behavioral thresholds were obtained, and CAEP recordings were made using these stimuli. The interaction of hearing loss, presentation levels, and filtering conditions resulted in a range of CAEP test behavioral sensation levels (SLs), from −25 to +40 dB. Results: Statistically significant CAEPs (p < .05) were obtained for virtually every presentation where the behavioral sensation level was >10 dB, and for only 5% of occasions when the sensation level was negative. In these (“false-positive”) cases, the greatest (negative) sensation level at which a CAEP was judged to be present was −6 dB SL. Conclusions: CAEPs are a sensitive tool for directly evaluating the audibility of speech sounds, at least for adult listeners. CAEP evaluation was found to be more accurate than audibility predictions, based on threshold and hearing aid response measures.


2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 234-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Curtis J. Billings ◽  
Kelly L. Tremblay ◽  
Pamela E. Souza ◽  
Malcolm A. Binns

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijayalakshmi Easwar ◽  
David W. Purcell ◽  
Susan D. Scollie

Background. Functioning of nonlinear hearing aids varies with characteristics of input stimuli. In the past decade, aided speech evoked cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) have been proposed for validation of hearing aid fittings. However, unlike in running speech, phonemes presented as stimuli during CAEP testing are preceded by silent intervals of over one second. Hence, the present study aimed to compare if hearing aids process phonemes similarly in running speech and in CAEP testing contexts.Method. A sample of ten hearing aids was used. Overall phoneme level and phoneme onset level of eight phonemes in both contexts were compared at three input levels representing conversational speech levels.Results. Differences of over 3 dB between the two contexts were noted in one-fourth of the observations measuring overall phoneme levels and in one-third of the observations measuring phoneme onset level. In a majority of these differences, output levels of phonemes were higher in the running speech context. These differences varied across hearing aids.Conclusion. Lower output levels in the isolation context may have implications for calibration and estimation of audibility based on CAEPs. The variability across hearing aids observed could make it challenging to predict differences on an individual basis.


PM&R ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. S149
Author(s):  
O. Daniel Páez ◽  
Fernando Ortiz C ◽  
V. Martha ◽  
C. Ortiz ◽  
Fabián J.F. Páez

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (01) ◽  
pp. 036-052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bram Van Dun ◽  
Alison King ◽  
Lyndal Carter ◽  
Wendy Pearce ◽  
Simone Punch

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document