MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cortical Representation of Interaural Time Difference Is Impaired by Deafness in Development: Evidence from Children with Early Long-term Access to Sound through Bilateral Cochlear Implants Provided Simultaneously

2017· article· en· W2582109414 on OpenAlexaff
Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Hiroshi Yamazaki, Michael Deighton, Blake C. Papsin, Karen A. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSound localizationBinaural recordingAudiologyAuditory cortexInteraural time differenceUnilateral hearing lossPsychologyNeuroscienceHearing lossMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate use of interaural time differences (ITDs) for spatial hearing may require access to bilateral auditory input during sensitive periods in human development. Providing bilateral cochlear implants (CIs) simultaneously promotes symmetrical development of bilateral auditory pathways but does not support normal ITD sensitivity. Thus, although binaural interactions are established by bilateral CIs in the auditory brainstem, potential deficits in cortical processing of ITDs remain. Cortical ITD processing in children with simultaneous bilateral CIs and normal hearing with similar time-in-sound was explored in the present study. Cortical activity evoked by bilateral stimuli with varying ITDs (0, ±0.4, ±1 ms) was recorded using multichannel electroencephalography. Source analyses indicated dominant activity in the right auditory cortex in both groups but limited ITD processing in children with bilateral CIs. In normal-hearing children, adult-like processing patterns were found underlying the immature P1 (∼100 ms) response peak with reduced activity in the auditory cortex ipsilateral to the leading ITD. Further, the left cortex showed a stronger preference than the right cortex for stimuli leading from the contralateral hemifield. By contrast, children with CIs demonstrated reduced ITD-related changes in both auditory cortices. Decreased parieto-occipital activity, possibly involved in spatial processing, was also revealed in children with CIs. Thus, simultaneous bilateral implantation in young children maintains right cortical dominance during binaural processing but does not fully overcome effects of deafness using present CI devices. Protection of bilateral pathways through simultaneous implantation might be capitalized for ITD processing with signal processing advances, which more consistently represent binaural timing cues. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Multichannel electroencephalography demonstrated impairment of binaural processing in children who are deaf despite early access to bilateral auditory input by first finding that foundations for binaural hearing are normally established during early stages of cortical development. Although 4- to 7-year-old children with normal hearing had immature cortical responses, adult patterns in cortical coding of binaural timing cues were measured. Second, children receiving two cochlear implants in the same surgery maintained normal-like input from both ears, but this did not support significant effects of binaural timing cues in either auditory cortex. Deficits in parieto-occiptal areas further suggested impairment in spatial processing. Results indicate that cochlear implants working independently in each ear do not fully overcome deafness-related binaural processing deficits, even after long-term experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207