Cargando…

Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores

OBJECTIVES: 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. Studying speech-Auditory Brainstem Response (speech-ABR) provides good information about spee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: JAROLLAHI, Farnoush, VALADBEIGI, Ayub, JALAEI, Bahram, MAAREFVAND, Mohammad, MOTASADDI ZARANDY, Masoud, HAGHANI, Hamid, SHIRZHIYZN, Zahra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9047831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35497112
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v16i2.27210
_version_ 1784695808299368448
author JAROLLAHI, Farnoush
VALADBEIGI, Ayub
JALAEI, Bahram
MAAREFVAND, Mohammad
MOTASADDI ZARANDY, Masoud
HAGHANI, Hamid
SHIRZHIYZN, Zahra
author_facet JAROLLAHI, Farnoush
VALADBEIGI, Ayub
JALAEI, Bahram
MAAREFVAND, Mohammad
MOTASADDI ZARANDY, Masoud
HAGHANI, Hamid
SHIRZHIYZN, Zahra
author_sort JAROLLAHI, Farnoush
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: 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. Studying speech-Auditory Brainstem Response (speech-ABR) provides good information about speech processing; thus, 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 with prelingual CI who had good speech recognition in noise performance. The second group (CI-poor) was 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. RESULTS: 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 users with poor auditory performance. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed that CI users who showed poor auditory performance in noise performance had deficits in encoding the periodic portion of speech signals at the brainstem level. Also, this study could be as physiological evidence for poorer pitch processing in CI users with poor speech recognition in noise performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9047831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90478312022-06-01 Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores JAROLLAHI, Farnoush VALADBEIGI, Ayub JALAEI, Bahram MAAREFVAND, Mohammad MOTASADDI ZARANDY, Masoud HAGHANI, Hamid SHIRZHIYZN, Zahra Iran J Child Neurol Original Article OBJECTIVES: 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. Studying speech-Auditory Brainstem Response (speech-ABR) provides good information about speech processing; thus, 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 with prelingual CI who had good speech recognition in noise performance. The second group (CI-poor) was 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. RESULTS: 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 users with poor auditory performance. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed that CI users who showed poor auditory performance in noise performance had deficits in encoding the periodic portion of speech signals at the brainstem level. Also, this study could be as physiological evidence for poorer pitch processing in CI users with poor speech recognition in noise performance. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2022 2022-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9047831/ /pubmed/35497112 http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v16i2.27210 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) ) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
JAROLLAHI, Farnoush
VALADBEIGI, Ayub
JALAEI, Bahram
MAAREFVAND, Mohammad
MOTASADDI ZARANDY, Masoud
HAGHANI, Hamid
SHIRZHIYZN, Zahra
Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title_full Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title_fullStr Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title_short Comparing Sound-Field Speech-Auditory Brainstem Response Components between Cochlear Implant Users with Different Speech Recognition in Noise Scores
title_sort comparing sound-field speech-auditory brainstem response components between cochlear implant users with different speech recognition in noise scores
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9047831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35497112
http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v16i2.27210
work_keys_str_mv AT jarollahifarnoush comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT valadbeigiayub comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT jalaeibahram comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT maarefvandmohammad comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT motasaddizarandymasoud comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT haghanihamid comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores
AT shirzhiyznzahra comparingsoundfieldspeechauditorybrainstemresponsecomponentsbetweencochlearimplantuserswithdifferentspeechrecognitioninnoisescores