Cochlear implant versus hearing aids: cortical auditory-evoked potentials study

Abstract

Patients with severe and profound hearing loss (HL) represent a unique challenge in hearing aids (HAs) fitting for whom cochlear implants (CIs) are better choice.

Objectives: To assess speech perception in children with severe-to-profound HL who are fitted with power HAs or CIs and compare their results with children with better hearing thresholds who are fitted with HAs.

Methods: Seventy children were participated in this work divided into four groups according to their hearing thresholds: GI: 18 children with moderate HL fitted with HAs, GII: 16 children with severe HL fitted with HAs, GIII: 16 children with profound HL fitted with HAs and GIV: 20 children with profound HL and fitted with CIs.

Results: Aided speech audiometry showed better results in GI and GIV while GIII showed the worst results among the four groups. P1–N1 of aided speech-evoked cortical auditory-evoked potentials (S-CAEPs) was recorded in all cases in GI and GIV and their latencies showed no significant difference, while GIII showed significantly delayed latencies. There was a significant negative correlation between P1 and N1 latencies and duration of HAs and CIs use in GII and GIV, respectively. Amplitudes of P1 and N2 showed a significant positive correlation with duration of HAs use in GII and GIII, respectively. GI showed a significant positive correlation between SRTs and P1 latency. GII showed significant negative correlations between SD% and N2 latency, while GIV showed a significant positive correlation between SRTs and P2 latency.

Conclusion: CIs represent a good choice for children with severe-to-profound and profound HL than power HAs. Children with more severe degrees of HL who do well on speech perception measures tend to have better S-CAEPs results with good correspondence between both measures. S-CAEPs and speech perception tests can be used regularly to assess the efficiency of auditory rehabilitation.

Keywords:

• Cochlear implants (CIs)
• hearing aids
• cortical auditory-evoked potentials
• speech processing

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.