Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2023; 27(03): e518-e527
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744172
Systematic Review

The P300 Auditory Evoked Potential in Cochlear Implant Users: A Scoping Review

Maria Stella Arantes do Amaral 
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, and Head and Neck Surgery, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
,
Nelma Ellen Zamberlan-Amorin 
2   Centro Especializado de Otorrinolaringologia e Fonoaudiologia (CEOF), Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Karina Dal Sasso Mendes 
3   Department of General and Specialized Nursing, Faculdade de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Sarah Carolina Bernal 
4   Health Sciences Department, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Eduardo Tanaka Massuda 
5   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Miguel Angelo Hyppolito 
5   Department of Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology, and Head and Neck Surgery, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis 
4   Health Sciences Department, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The P300 auditory evoked potential is a long-latency cortical potential evoked with auditory stimulation, which provides information on neural mechanisms underlying the central auditory processing.

Objectives To identify and gather scientific evidence regarding the P300 in adult cochlear implant (CI) users.

Data Synthesis A total of 87 articles, 20 of which were selected for this study, were identified and exported to the Rayyan search software. Those 20 articles did not propose a homogeneous methodology, which made comparison more difficult. Most articles (60%) in this review compare CI users with typical hearing people, showing prolonged P300 latency in CI users. Among the studies, 35% show that CI users present a smaller P300 amplitude. Another variable is the influence of the kind of stimulus used to elicit P300, which was prolonged in 30% of the studies that used pure tone stimuli, 10% of the studies that used pure tone and speech stimuli, and 60% of the studies that used speech stimuli.

Conclusion This review has contributed with evidence that shows the importance of applying a controlled P300 protocol to diagnose and monitor CI users. Regardless of the stimuli used to elicit P300, we noticed a pattern in the increase in latency and decrease in amplitude in CI users. The user's experience with the CI speech processor over time and the speech test results seem to be related to the P300 latency and amplitude measurements.

Keywords

auditory evoked potential - cochlear implant - electrophysiology - neuronal plasticity - audiology


Publication History

Received: 11 April 2021

Accepted: 23 January 2022

Article published online:
11 July 2022

© 2022. Fundação Otorrinolaringologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Duarte JL, Alvarenga KF, Costa OA. Potencial cognitivo P300 realizado em campo livre: aplicabilidade do teste. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004; 70 (06) 780-785
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Massa CG, Rabelo CM, Matas CG, Schochat E, Samelli AG. P300 with verbal and nonverbal stimuli in normal hearing adults. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2011; 77 (06) 686-690
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Franco GM. O potencial evocado cognitivo em adultos normais. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2001; 59 (2-A): 198-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hall J. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kraus N, Mcgee T. Potenciais auditivos de longa latência. In: Katz, J.; Ivey RG. (eds). Tratado de audiologia clínica. São Paulo: Manole; 1999. 4.
    Google Scholar
  • 6 McPherson DL. Late potentials of the auditory system. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Picton TW, Alain C, Woods DL. et al. Intracerebral sources of human auditory-evoked potentials. Audiol Neurotol 1999; 4 (02) 64-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Didoné DD, Oppitz SJ, Folgearini J, Biaggio EP, Garcia MV. Auditory Evoked Potentials with Different Speech Stimuli: a Comparison and Standardization of Values. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 20 (02) 99-104
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Korczak P. Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (03) 285-313 Review
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 - Stapells DR. Cortical event-related potentials to auditory stimuli. In: KATZ J, Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 5. Maryland: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002: 308-406
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Huettel SA, McCarthy G. What is odd in the oddball task? Prefrontal cortex is activated by dynamic changes in response strategy. Neuropsychologia 2004; 42 (03) 379-386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Connell RG, Dockree PM, Kelly SP. A supramodal accumulation-to-bound signal that determines perceptual decisions in humans. Nat Neurosci 2012; 15 (12) 1729-1735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Polich J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118 (10) 2128-2148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Verleger R. Effects of relevance and response frequency on P3b amplitudes: Review of findings and comparison of hypotheses about the process reflected by P3b. Psychophysiology 2020; 57 (07) e13542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Martin DA, Tremblay KL, Stapells DR. Principles and applications of cortical auditory Evoked Potentials. In Burkard RF, Don M, Eggermont, JJ. Auditory Evoked Potentials: basic principles and clinical application. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007: 482-507
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Kozlowski L, Wiemes GMR, Magni C, Silva ALG. A efetividade do treinamento auditivo na desordem do processamento auditivo central: estudo de caso. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2004; 68 (04) 427-432
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reis ACM, Iório MC. [P300 in subjects with hearing loss]. Pro Fono 2007; 19 (01) 113-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Polen SB. Auditory event-related potentials. Semin Hear 1984; 5 (02) 127-141
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Oates PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (05) 399-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Wall LG, Martin JW. The effect of hearing loss on the latency of the P300 evoked potential: A pilot study. NSSLHA J. 1991; 18: 121-125
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Torkildsen JVK, Arciuli J, Haukedal CL, Wie OB. Does a lack of auditory experience affect sequential learning?. Cognition 2018; 170: 123-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Kaga K, Kodera K, Hirota E, Tsuzuku T. P300 response to tones and speech sounds after cochlear implant: a case report. Laryngoscope 1991; 101 (08) 905-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Groenen P, Snik A, van den Broek P. On the clinical relevance of mismatch negativity: results from subjects with normal hearing and cochlear implant users. Audiol Neurotol 1996; 1 (02) 112-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jordan K, Schmidt A, Plotz K. et al. Auditory event-related potentials in post- and prelingually deaf cochlear implant recipients. Am J Otol 1997; 18 (6, Suppl) S116-S117
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Okusa M, Shiraishi T, Kubo T, Nageishi Y. Effects of discrimination difficulty on cognitive event-related brain potentials in patients with cochlear implants. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999; 121 (05) 610-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kubo T, Yamamoto K, Iwaki T, Matsukawa M, Doi K, Tamura M. Significance of auditory evoked responses (EABR and P300) in cochlear implant subjects. Acta Otolaryngol 2001; 121 (02) 257-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Iwaki T, Matsushiro N, Mah SR. et al. Comparison of speech perception between monaural and binaural hearing in cochlear implant patients. Acta Otolaryngol 2004; 124 (04) 358-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Mühler R, Ziese M, Kevanishvili Z, Schmidt M, von Specht H. Visualization of stimulation patterns in cochlear implants: application to event-related potentials (P300) in cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 2004; 25 (02) 186-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kelly AS, Purdy SC, Thorne PR. Electrophysiological and speech perception measures of auditory processing in experienced adult cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (06) 1235-1246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Nager W, Münte TF, Bohrer I. et al. Automatic and attentive processing of sounds in cochlear implant patients - electrophysiological evidence. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2007; 25 (3-4): 391-396
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sasaki T, Yamamoto K, Iwaki T, Kubo T. Assessing binaural/bimodal advantages using auditory event-related potentials in subjects with cochlear implants. Auris Nasus Larynx 2009; 36 (05) 541-546
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Obuchi C, Harashima T, Shiroma M. Auditory Evoked Potentials under Active and Passive Hearing Conditions in Adult Cochlear Implant Users. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 5 (Suppl 1): S6-S9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Finke M, Sandmann P, Kopp B, Lenarz T, Büchner A. Auditory distraction transmitted by a cochlear implant alters allocation of attentional resources. Front Neurosci 2015; 9: 68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Grasel S, Greters M, Goffi-Gomez MVS. et al. P3 Cognitive Potential in Cochlear Implant Users. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22 (04) 408-414
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Beynon AJ, Snik AF, Stegeman DF, van den Broek P. Discrimination of speech sound contrasts determined with behavioral tests and event-related potentials in cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (01) 42-53
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Henkin Y, Tetin-Schneider S, Hildesheimer M, Kishon-Rabin L. Cortical neural activity underlying speech perception in postlingual adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurotol 2009; 14 (01) 39-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Soshi T, Hisanaga S, Kodama N. et al. Event-related potentials for better speech perception in noise by cochlear implant users. Hear Res 2014; 316: 110-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Henkin Y, Yaar-Soffer Y, Steinberg M, Muchnik C. Neural correlates of auditory-cognitive processing in older adult cochlear implant recipients. Audiol Neurotol 2014; 19 (Suppl 1): 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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; 87: 169-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Koelsch S, Wittfoth M, Wolf A, Müller J, Hahne A. Music perception in cochlear implant users: an event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (04) 966-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Makhdoum MJ, Hinderink JB, Snik AF, Groenen P, van den Broek P. Can event-related potentials be evoked by extra-cochlear stimulation and used for selection purposes in cochlear implantation?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1998; 23 (05) 432-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Groenen PA, Beynon AJ, Snik AF, van den Broek P. Speech-evoked cortical potentials and speech recognition in cochlear implant users. Scand Audiol 2001; 30 (01) 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Soares C, Khalil H, Parker D. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2018 May 01]. Available from: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Systematic Reviews, Centre for Research and Dissemination, University of York,. 2008 https://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
    PubMed
  • 45 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5 (01) 210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097 http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 Accessed May012018 [Internet]
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Linden DE. The p300: where in the brain is it produced and what does it tell us?. Neuroscientist 2005; 11 (06) 563-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Fjell AM, Walhovd KB. Effects of auditory stimulus intensity and hearing threshold on the relationship among P300, age, and cognitive function. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114 (05) 799-807
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Chang YS, Hong SH, Kim EY. et al. Benefit and predictive factors for speech perception outcomes in pediatric bilateral cochlear implant recipients. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2019; 85 (05) 571-577
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Finke M, Billinger M, Büchner A. Toward Automated Cochlear Implant Fitting Procedures Based on Event-Related Potentials. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (02) e118-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Amaral MSA. Comportamento do P300 em pacientes usuários de implante coclear com eletroestimulação unilateral [tesis]. Ribeirão Preto. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto – Universidade de São Paulo; 2019;105
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Amaral MSA, Zamberlan-Amorim NE, Mendes KDS. et al. Auditory evoked potential (P300) in cochlear implant users: a scoping review. bioRxiv 2020; in press.
    Google Scholar