Profoundly deaf children who use a cochlear implant (CI) provide a unique opportunity to investigate the effects of auditory sensory deprivation on the maturing human central nervous system. Previous results suggest that children fitted with a CI show evidence of altered auditory cortical maturation, based on evoked potentials. This altered maturation was characterized by both latency delays and morphological changes in the cortical auditory evoked potentials (AEPs). Based on prolonged P1 latencies compared to age-matched normal-hearing (NH) peers, these data suggested a delayed maturation nearly equivalent to the period of deafness. However, rates of maturation for this AEP peak were essentially the same in NH and CI children. This suggests that, given enough time, the AEPs of CI children would assume the characteristic morphology found in older NH teens and NH adults. However, the data also indicated a substantial alteration of the typical set of obligatory P1-N1b-P2 peaks, specifically related to the absence of the N1 potential. Recent analyses of more extensive sets of longitudinal and cross-sectional data indicate that even after many years of implant use, the AEPs of CI users in their late teens remain very different from those of their NH peers. The P1 peak latency remains prolonged and P1 amplitude remains much larger in CI users than in age-matched NH teens. These findings suggested that age-related changes in the P1 peak are completed by 12 years of age. In addition, the normal N1b peak fails to emerge in virtually all of the CI children tested in our laboratory. A major new interpretation of the abnormal maturation of AEP waveforms in CI children is presented. It is based on direct evidence showing that a persistent immaturity of the superficial layer axons has persistent negative effects on the generation of the N1b and, consequently, on the morphology of the AEPs. A comparison of scalp-recorded AEPs from implanted children with local field potentials measured from the cortical surface in deaf white kittens suggests the effects of deafness and CI use are similar across these mammalian species. For both species, a period of profound deafness followed by CI stimulation reveals a substantial immaturity in cortical activation even after a period of electrical stimulation by the CI.

1.
Buchwald JS, Rubinstein EH, Schwafel J, Strandburg RJ: Midlatency auditory evoked responses: Differential effects of a cholinergic agonist and antagonist. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;80:303–309.
2.
Busby PA, Tong YC, Clarke GM: Psychophysical studies using a multiple-electrode implant in patients who were deafened early in life. Audiology 1992;31:95–111.
3.
Cauller LJ, Kulics: The neural basis of the behaviorally relevant N1 component of the somatosensory-evoked potential in SI cortex of awake monkeys: Evidence that backward cortical projections signal conscious touch sensation. Exp Brain Res 1991;84:607–619.
4.
Courchesne E: Neurophysiological correlates of cognitive development: Changes in long latency event-related potentials from childhood to adulthood. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978;45:468–482.
5.
Courchesne E: Chronology of postnatal human brain development: Event-related potentials, positron emission tomography, myelogenesis, and synaptogenesis studies; in Rohrbaugh JW, Parasuraman R, Johnson R Jr (eds): Event-Related Brain Potentials: Basic Issues and Applications. New York, Oxford University Press, 1990, pp 210–241.
6.
Creutzfeldt OD, Watanabe S, Lux HD: Relations between EEG phenomena and potentials of single cortical cells. I. Evoked responses after thalamic and epicortical stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1966;20:1–18.
7.
Csépe V: On the origin and development of the mismatch negativity. Ear Hear 1995;16:91–103.
8.
Eddington DK, Dobelle WH, Brackmann DE, Mladejovsky MG, Parkin JL: Auditory prostheses research with multiple channel intracochlear stimulation in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1978;87(suppl 53):5–39.
9.
Eggermont JJ: Stimulus induced and spontaneous rhythmic firing of single-units in cat primary auditory cortex. Hear Res 1992;61:1–11.
10.
Eggermont JJ: Differential maturation rates for response parameters in cat auditory cortex. Aud Neurosci 1996;2:309–327.
11.
Eggermont JJ, Smith J: Separating local from global effects in neural pair correlograms. Neuroreport 1995;13:2121–2124.
12.
Eggermont JJ, Ponton CW: The neurophysiology of auditory perception: from single-units to evoked potentials. Audiol Neurootol 2002, in press.
13.
Erwin RJ, Buchwald JS: Midlatency auditory evoked responses: Differential recovery cycle characteristics. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986a;64:417–423.
14.
Erwin RJ, Buchwald JS: Midlatency auditory evoked responses: Differential effects of sleep in humans. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986b;65:383–392.
15.
Geers AE: Comparing impants with hearing aids in profoundly deaf children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997;117:150–154.
16.
Geers AE, Moog JS: Evaluating the benefits of cochlear implants in an education setting. Am J Otol 1991;12(suppl):116–125.
17.
Graybiel AM: The thalamo-cortical projection of the so-called posterior nuclear group: A study with anterograde degeneration methods in the cat. Brain Res 1973;49:229–244.
18.
Grinvald A, Frostig RD, Lieke E, Hildesheim R: Optical imaging of neuronal activity. Physiol Rev 1988;68:1285–1366.
19.
Hyde M: The N1 response and its applications. Audiol Neurootol 1997;2:281–307.
20.
Imig TJ, Brugge JF: Sources and terminations of callosal axons related to binaural and frequency maps in primary auditory cortex of the cat. J Comp Neurol 1978;182:637–660.
21.
Javitt DC, Steinschneider M, Schroeder CE, Vaughan HG, Arezzo JC: Detection of stimulus deviance within primary auditory cortex: intracortical mechanisms of mismatch negativity (MMN) generation. Brain Res 1994;667:192–200.
22.
Juliano SL: Mapping the sensory mosaic. Science 1998;279:1653–1654.
23.
Kaga K, Hink RF, Shinoda Y, Suzuki: Evidence for a primary cortical origin of a middle latency auditory evoked potential in cats. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980;50:254–266.
24.
Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM: Principles of Neural Science. New York, Elsevier, 1991.
25.
Kilgard MP, Merzenich MM: Cortical map reorganization in enabled by nucleus basalis activity. Science 1998;279:1714–1718.
26.
Klinke R, Kral A, Heid S, Tillein J, Hartmann R: Recruitment of the auditory cortex in congenitally deaf cats by long-term electro-stimulation through a cochlear implant. Science 1999;285:1729–1733.
27.
Knight RT, Hillyard SA, Woods DL, Neville HJ: The effects of frontal and temporal-parietal lesions on the auditory evoked potential in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980;50:112–124.
28.
Knight RT, Scabini D, Woods DL, Clayworth C: The effects of lesions of superior temporal gyrus and inferior parietal lobe on temporal and vertex components of the human AEP. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;70:499–509.
29.
Kral A, Hartmann R, Tillein J, Heid S, Klinke R: Congenital auditory deprivation reduces synaptic activity within auditory cortex in a layer specific manner. Cereb Cortex 2000;10:714–726.
30.
Kraus N, McGee T: Clinical implications of primary and nonprimary pathway contributions to the middle latency response generating system. Ear Hear 1993;14:36–48.
31.
Kraus N, McGee T, Littman T, Nicol T, King C: Nonprimary auditory thalamic representation of acoustic change. J Neurophysiol 1994;72:1270–1277.
32.
Kraus N, Micco AG, Koch DB, McGee T, Carrell T, Wiet R, Weingarten C, Sharma A: The mismatch negativity cortical evoked potential elicited by speech in cochlear implant users. Hear Res 1993;65:118–124.
33.
Liégeois-Chauvel C, Musolino A, Badier JM, Marquis P, Chauvel P: Evoked potentials recorded from the auditory cortex in man: Evaluation and topography of the middle latency components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994;92:204–214.
34.
Mäkelä JP, McEvoy L: Auditory evoked fields to illusory sound source movements. Exp Brain Res 1996;110:446–454.
35.
Mitzdorf U: Current source-density method and application in cat cerebral cortex: Investigation of evoked potentials and EEG phenomena. Physiol Rev 1985;65:37–100.
36.
Moore JK, Guan Y-L: Cytoarchitectural and axonal maturation in human auditory cortex. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2001, electronically published DOI 10.1007/s 101620010052.
37.
Näätänen R, Picton TW: The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987;24:375–425.
38.
Pandya DN, Rosene DL: Laminar termination patterns of thalamic, callosal and association afferents in the primary auditory area of the Rhesus monkey. Exp Neurol 1993;119:220–234.
39.
Picton TW, Hillyard SA, Krausz HI, Galambos R: Human auditory evoked potentials. I. Evaluation of components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974;34:179–190.
40.
Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Masuda A: Maturation of human cortical auditory function: Differences between normal hearing and cochlear implant children. Ear Hear 1996a;17:430–437.
41.
Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Kwong B, Masuda A: Auditory system plasticity in children after long periods of complete deafness. Neuroreport 1996b;8:61–65.
42.
Ponton CW, Don M, Waring MD, Eggermont JJ, Masuda A: Spatio-temporal source modeling of evoked-potentials to acoustic and cochlear implant stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993;88:478–493.
43.
Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Don M, Waring MD, Kwong B, Cunningham J, Trautwein P: Maturation of the mismatch negativity: Effects of profound deafness and cochlear implant use. Audiol Neurootol 2000a;5:167–185.
44.
Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M: Maturation of human central auditory system activity: Evidence from multi-channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2000b;111:220–236.
45.
Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Khosla D, Kwong B, Don M: Maturation of human central auditory system activity: Separating auditory evoked potentials by dipole source modeling. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, in press.
46.
Ponton CW, Moore JK, Eggermont JJ: Prolonged deafness limits auditory system developmental plasticity: Evidence from an evoked potential study in children with cochlear implants. Scand Audiol Suppl 1999;51:13–22.
47.
Reese NB, Garcia-Rill E, Skinner RD: Auditory input to the pedunculopontine nucleus. I. Evoked potentials. Brain Res Bull 1995;37:257–264.
48.
Reite M, Teale P, Zimmerman J, Davis K, Whalen J: Source location of a 50 ms latency auditory evoked field component. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988;70:490–498.
49.
Rif J, Hari R, Hamalainen MS, Sams M: Auditory attention affects two different areas in the human supratemporal cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991;79:464–472.
50.
Robbins AM, Bollard PM, Green J: Language development in children implanted with the CLARION cochlear implant. Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:113–118.
51.
Robertson RT: A morphometric role for transiently expressed acetylcholine esterase activity in the developing thalamocortical systems? Neurosci Lett 1987;75:259–264.
52.
Scherg M, Von Cramon D: Evoked dipole source potentials of the human auditory cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986;65:344–360.
53.
Shannon RV, Adams DD, Ferrel RL, Palumbo RL, Grandgenett MA: Computer interface for psychophysical and speech research with the Nucleus cochlear implant. J Acoust Soc Am 1990;87:905–907.
54.
Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee TJ, Nicol TG: Developmental changes in P1 and N1 central auditory system responses elicited by consonant-vowel syllables. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1997;104:540–545.
55.
Skinner JE, Yingling CD: Central gating mechanisms that regulate event-related potentials and behavior: A neural model for attention; in Desmedt JE (ed): Attention, Voluntary Contraction and Event-Related Cerebral Potentials. Prog Clin Neurophysiol. Basel, Karger, 1977, pp 30–69.
56.
Suzuki T, Hirabayashi M: Age-related morphological changes in the auditory middle-latency response. Audiology 1987;26:312–320.
57.
Svirsky MA, Meyer TA: Comparison of speech perception in pediatric CLARION cochlear implant and hearing aid users. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1999;177:104–109.
58.
Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT: Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci 2000;11:153–158.
59.
Timney B, Mitchell DE: Behavioral recovery from visual deprivation: Comments on the critical period; in Freeman RD (ed): Developmental Neurobiology of Vision. New York, Plenum Press, 1979, pp 149–160.
60.
Vaughan H, Arezzo J: The neural basis of event-related potentials; in Picton TW (ed): Human Event-Related Potentials. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1988, pp 45–96.
61.
Weinberger NM: Tuning the brain by learning and by stimulation of the nucleus basalis. Trends Cogn Sci 1998;2:272–273.
62.
Weinberger NM, Diamond DM: Physiological plasticity in auditory cortex: Rapid induction by learning. Prog Neurobiol 1987;29:1–55.
63.
Yingling CD, Skinner JE: Gating of thalamic input to cerebral cortex by nucleus reticularis laminaris; in Desmedt JE (ed): Attention, Voluntary Contraction and Event-Related Cerebral Potentials. Prog Clin Neurophysiol. Basel, Karger, 1977, pp 70–96.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.