Acta Scientific Otolaryngology (ASOL) (ISSN: 2582-5550)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 11

Measuring Cross Modal Plasticity Using Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) in Children with Cochlear Implant

Ramla Ismail* and Ranjith R

MERF Institute of Speech and Hearing, Chennai, India

*Corresponding Author: Ramla Ismail, MERF Institute of Speech and Hearing, Chennai, India.

Received: August 10, 2022; Published: October 14, 2022

Abstract

Introduction: The individuals deprived of auditory input can compensate with superior specific abilities in the remaining sensory modalities, in children with short or longer duration of deafness. Auditory cortex can be recruited by other modalities especially visual or tactile function. When subjects receive a new sensory stimulation from Cochlear Implant, the cortex undergoes re-reorganization. Visual evoked potential (VEP) is an electrophysiological measure that can be used to measure the visual -auditory reorganization in the hearing-impaired population.

Aim: To investigate the extend of cross-modal plasticity in children with CI and to profile the morphology of VEP in subjects with varying duration of deafness followed by Cochlear Implantation.

Method: Forty-five children with Cochlear Implant between the age range of four to ten years of age. All subjects received Cochlear Implant, with minimum duration of implantation 0-1 year. Stimulus used was checkerboard pattern reversal, recorded using Allengers Scorpio EMG EO NCS system. Latency of P100 and amplitude of P100 was recorded from Oz, Cz, T5 and T6 was analyzed and compared in the implant age group, and in group with increasing duration of deafness.

Result: In this study, there was a change in the amplitude and latency of P100 across the subjects, grouped based on the implant age, the changes were observed in all the recording sites across the groups. The amplitude of P100 was more reduced as the implant age increases, when the data was re-analyzed with respect to the duration of deafness, the amplitude of P100 decreased as the duration of deafness increased. The P2 component was not observed.

Conclusion: The finding suggests the visual processing skills tend to improve as a consequence of electrical input to the auditory cortex via cochlear implant in subjects with longer duration of deafness, as a result of long- term alteration of auditory experience. After implantation, as the auditory cortex of a congenitally deafened individual not only responds for the auditory stimuli, but also for the visual stimuli. In subjects with longer deprivation of hearing the cross-modal changes of the deaf auditory cortex might hinder its recruitment by the cochlear implant input, if this cortical structure has been functionally re- organized by the spared sensory modalities. As a consequence of this phenomenon, input from the cochlear implant may hinder in the perception of visual cues for speech reading skills of the subject.

Keywords: Plasticity; Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP);<

References

  1. “The Principles of Psychology” (1890).
  2. Andrej Krala JT. “Brain Plasticity under Cochlear Implant Stimulation”. In A.R. Moller, Cochlear and Brainstem Implants (2006): 89-108.
  3. Etienne Vachon-Presseau MM., M. R., The Journal of Neuroscience, April 17, 33.16 (2013): 6826-6833
  4. Ponton CW., et al. “Auditory System Plasticity in Children after Long Periods of Complete Deafness”. NeuroReport 8 (1996): 61-65.
  5. Anu Sharma MF. “Central Auditory Development in Children with Cochlear Implants: Clinical Implications”. In A. R.Møller, Cochlear and Brainstem Implants (2006): 66-88.
  6. Phillip M Gilleya A S. “The influence of a sensitive period for auditory- visual integration in children with cochlear implants”. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 28 (2010): 207-218.
  7. ME Doucet FB. “Cross-modal reorganization and speech perception in cochlear implant users”. Brain (2006): 3376-3383.
  8. Min-BeomKim HY. “Cross-modal and intra-modal characteristics of visual function and speech perception performance in postlingually deafened, cochlear implant users”. PLoS ONE 2 (2016): e0148466.
  9. Phillip M Gilleya A S. “The influence of a sensitive period for auditory- visual integration in children with cochlear implants”. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 28 (2010): 207-218.
  10. Julia Campbell A S. “Cross-Modal Re-Organization in Adults with Early-Stage Hearing Loss”. PLoS ONE (2014): e90594.
  11. Kuzma Strelnikov JRF. “Visual activity predicts auditory recovery from deafness after adult cochlear implantation”. Brain A Journal of Neurology 136 (2013): 3682-3695.
  12. Ling-ChiaChen PJ. “Cross-Modal Functional Reorganization of Visual and Auditory Cortex in Adult Cochlear Implant Users Identified with fNIRS”. Neural Plasticity (2016): 13.
  13. Sandmann P., et al. “Visual activation of auditory cortex reflects maladaptive plasticity in cochlear implant users”. Brain (2012): 555-568.
  14. Anu Sharma P M. “Deprivation-induced cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants”. International Journal of Audiology (2007).
  15. Phillip M Gilley. “Cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants”. Brain Resources 1239 (2008): 56-65.
  16. David A Bulkin and Jennifer M G. “Seeing Sounds: Visual and auditory interactions in the brain”. Current Option in Neurobiology 16 (2006): 415-419.
  17. Elizabeth R Sowell., et al. “Longitudinal mapping of cortical thickness and brain growth in normal children”. The Journal of Neuroscience38 (2004): 8223-8231.
  18. Eva M Finney and Karen RD. “Visual contrast sensitivity in deaf versus hearing populations: exploring the perceptual consequences of auditory deprivation and experience with a visual language”. Cognitive Brain Research 11 (2001): 171-183.
  19. Helen J Neville., et al. “Altered Visual-evoked Potentials deaf adults”. Brain Research 266 (1983): 127-132.
  20. J Chlubnova., et al. “Visual evoked potentials and event related potentials in congenitally deaf subjects”. Physiology Research 54 (2005): 577-583.
  21. Jennifer M Groh and Uri W-R. “Visual and auditory integration”. Encyclopedia of Human Brain 4 (2001): 1-14.
  22. J Vernon Odom., et al. “ISCEV standard for clinical visual evoked potentials (2009 update)”. Documenta Ophthalmologica 120 (2010): 111- 119.
  23. Laurie Von Melchner., et al. “Visual behavior mediated by retinal projections directed to the auditory pathway”. Nature 404 (2000).
  24. Marie- Eve Doucets., et al. “Development of visual- evoked potentials to radially modulated concentric patterns”. Neuroreport167 (2005).
  25. Mark A Eckert., et al. “A cross-modal system linking primary auditory and visual cortices: Evidence from intrinsic fMRI connectivity analysis”. Human Brain Mapping 29 (2008): 848-885.
  26. Matthew J H., et al. “Age difference in visual evoked potential estimates of interhemispheric transfer”. Neurology Psychology2 (1991): 263-271.
  27. Monika Kamara., et al. “Normative data for pattern reversal visual evoked potentials in population of north India”. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Science6 (2014): 48-52.
  28. M E Doucet., et al. “Cross-modal reorganization and speech perception in cochlear implant users”. Brain 129 (2006): 3376-3383.
  29. OP Tandon and KN Sharma. “Visual evoked potential in young adults: a normative study”. Physiology Pharmacy4 (1989).
  30. Sandmann P. “Visual processing in the auditory cortex of cochlear-implant users”. Brain Products Press Release 42 (2012).
  31. Phillip M Gilley., et al. “The influence of a sensitivity period for auditory - visual integration in children with cochlear implants”. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience 28 (2010): 207-281 207.
  32. Wing Hong Lake and Shareen S. “Central and peripheral visual processing in hearing and non-hearing individuals”. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society5 (1991): 437-440.
  33. Renu Yadav., et al. “Normative data of visual evoked potential in children and correlation with age”. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences2 (2016).
  34. Mitchell Brigell., et al. “The pattern visual evoked potential A multicenter study using standardized techniques”. Documenta Opthalmologica 86 (1994): 65-79.
  35. Ruby Sharma., et al. “Visual Evoked Potentials: Normative values and Gender Difference”. Journal of clinical and Diagnostic Research7 (2015): CC12-CC15.
  36. Carly A Lawler., et al. “The use of functional near-infrared spectroscopy for measuring cortical reorganization in cochlear implant users: A possible predictor of variable speech outcomes”. Cochlear Implants InternationalS1 (2015): S30-S32.
  37. Merabet L B and Pascual-Leone A. “Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change”. Nature Reviews Neuroscience1 (2009): 44-52.
  38. Neville H and Bavelier D. “Human Brain Plasticity: Evidence from Sensory Deprivation and Altered Language Experience”. Progress in Brain Research 138 (2002): 177-188.
  39. Nunez PL. “Electric fields in the brain: the neurophysics of EEG”. (1981) New York Oxford University Press (1981).
  40. Bavelier D., et al. “Do deaf individuals see better?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (2006): 512-518.
  41. Fryauf-Bertschy H., et al. “Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use”. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1 (1997): 183-199.
  42. Rouger J., et al. “Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators”. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America17 (2007): 7295-7300.
  43. K Strelnikov., et al. “Does Brain Activity at Rest Reflect Adaptive Strategies?” Evidence from Speech Processing after Cochlear Implantation, Cerebral Cortex 20 (2010): 1217-1222.
  44. Anne-Lise Giraud., et al. “Cross-Modal Plasticity Underpins Language Recovery after Cochlear Implantation”. Neuron3 (2001): 657-664.

Citation

Citation: Ramla Ismail and Ranjith R. “Measuring Cross Modal Plasticity Using Visual Evoked Potentials (VEP) in Children with Cochlear Implant".Acta Scientific Otolaryngology 4.11 (2022): 22-29.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2022 Ramla Ismail and Ranjith R. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate34%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor0.871

Indexed In







News and Events


Contact US