Activity-Dependent Developmental Plasticity of the Auditory Brain Stem in Children Who Use Cochlear Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives 1) To determine if a period of early auditory deprivation influences neural activity patterns as revealed by human auditory brain stem potentials evoked by electrical stimulation from a cochlear implant. 2) To examine the potential for plasticity in the human auditory brain stem. Specifically, we asked if electrically evoked auditory potentials from the auditory nerve and brain stem in children show evidence of development as a result of implant use. 3) To assess whether a sensitive or critical period exists in auditory brain stem development. Specifically, is there an age of implantation after which there are no longer developmental changes in auditory brain stem activity as revealed by electrically evoked potentials? Design The electrically evoked compound potential of the auditory nerve (ECAP) and the electrically evoked auditory brain stem response (EABR) were recorded repeatedly during the first year of implant use in each of 50 children. The children all had pre- or peri-lingual onset of severe to profound sensorineural hearing loss and received their implants at ages ranging from 12 mo to 17 yr. All children received Nucleus cochlear implant devices. All children were in therapy and in school programs that emphasized listening and required the children to wear their implants consistently. Results Initial stimulation from the cochlear implant evoked clear responses from the auditory nerve and auditory brain stem in most children. There was no correlation between minimum latency, maximum amplitude, or slope of amplitude growth of initial responses with age at implantation for ECAP eN1, EABR eIII and eV components (p > 0.05). During the first year of implant use, minimum latency of these waves significantly decreased (p < 0.01, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, respectively). Neural conduction time, measured using the interwave latency of ECAP eN1-EABR eIII for lower brain stem and EABR eIII-eV for upper brain stem, decreased during the period of 6 to 12 mo of cochlear implant use (p < 0.01 (lower), p < 0.0001(upper)). The ECAP wave eN1 and the EABR wave eV showed significant increases in amplitude during time of implant use (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). There were no correlations between the rate of interwave latency decrease and the rate of amplitude increases and the age at which children underwent implantation (p < 0.05). Conclusions Activity in the auditory pathways to the level of the midbrain can be evoked by acute stimulation from a cochlear implant. EABR measures are not influenced by any period of auditory deprivation. Auditory development proceeds once the implant is activated and involves improvements in neural conduction velocity and neural synchrony. Underlying mechanisms likely include improvements in synaptic efficacy and possibly increased myelination. The developmental plasticity that we have shown in the human auditory brain stem does not appear from EABR data to be limited by a critical period during childhood. In children with pre- or peri-lingual deafness, a period of auditory deprivation occurs during potentially sensitive times in development. In the present study, we aimed to determine the effect of early-onset deafness on auditory nerve and brainstem activity, the potential for plasticity in the human auditory system, and whether a sensitive or critical period exists in auditory brainstem development. Electrically evoked potentials of the auditory nerve and brainstem response were recorded repeatedly during the first year of cochlear implant use in each of 50 children ranging in age from 12 months to 17 years. Auditory brainstem potentials evoked by acute stimulation from a cochlear implant in children were not influenced by any period of auditory deprivation. With ongoing cochlear implant use, evoked potential data suggested that auditory brainstem development proceeds and is not limited by a critical period during childhood. Cochlear implantation effectively promotes developmental changes in children irrespective of age at implant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".