Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
THE CENTRAL AUDITORY SYSTEM AND
COCHLEAR IMPLANTATION: USING OLFACTORY
TESTING TO EVALUATE A POTENTIAL CENTRAL
COMPONENT IN COCHLEAR IMPLANT
PERFORMANCE
1
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas,
Kansas City, KS, U.S.A.
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Publication date: 2017-03-31
Corresponding author
Hinrich Staecker
Hinrich Staecker, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160, U.S.A., e-mail: hstaecker@kumc.edu
Hinrich Staecker, Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160, U.S.A., e-mail: hstaecker@kumc.edu
J Hear Sci 2017;7(1):27-32
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Cochlear implantation is a highly successful intervention that, despite remarkable improvements in hardware and software, continues to show a high degree of variability in outcomes. Performance in adult patients can potentially be affected by the integrity of spiral ganglion neurons or by the performance of the central auditory system. Prolonged deafness and dementia are conditions that affect the central auditory system and can negatively impact cochlear implant outcomes. Central auditory test batteries can evaluate the central component of hearing in patients that have significant residual hearing, but cannot be effectively used in most cochlear implant patients. A wide variety of recent studies have shown that decline in olfaction predates and often predicts a variety of central nervous system degenerative disorders. We set out to evaluate if olfaction testing could predict hearing results after cochlear implantation.
Material and Methods:
Adult cochlear implant candidates were recruited and olfaction measured with the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test (UPSIT). Testing variables in the analysis include patient age, UPSIT score, AzBio +10 dB score at 6 months post activation, and change in AzBio +10 dB score from preoperative to post-activation testing times
Results:
Lower olfaction (UPSIT) scores correlated with poorer hearing outcomes (AzBio +10 dB) at 6 months post activation. Patients with lower UPSIT scores also showed less change in AzBio +10 dB scores over a 6-month period.
Conclusions:
Olfactory testing may be useful in preoperative evaluation of cochlear implant patients. Identification of patients at risk for central auditory system dysfunction may be possible by evaluation of patients’ olfactory function.
Cochlear implantation is a highly successful intervention that, despite remarkable improvements in hardware and software, continues to show a high degree of variability in outcomes. Performance in adult patients can potentially be affected by the integrity of spiral ganglion neurons or by the performance of the central auditory system. Prolonged deafness and dementia are conditions that affect the central auditory system and can negatively impact cochlear implant outcomes. Central auditory test batteries can evaluate the central component of hearing in patients that have significant residual hearing, but cannot be effectively used in most cochlear implant patients. A wide variety of recent studies have shown that decline in olfaction predates and often predicts a variety of central nervous system degenerative disorders. We set out to evaluate if olfaction testing could predict hearing results after cochlear implantation.
Material and Methods:
Adult cochlear implant candidates were recruited and olfaction measured with the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test (UPSIT). Testing variables in the analysis include patient age, UPSIT score, AzBio +10 dB score at 6 months post activation, and change in AzBio +10 dB score from preoperative to post-activation testing times
Results:
Lower olfaction (UPSIT) scores correlated with poorer hearing outcomes (AzBio +10 dB) at 6 months post activation. Patients with lower UPSIT scores also showed less change in AzBio +10 dB scores over a 6-month period.
Conclusions:
Olfactory testing may be useful in preoperative evaluation of cochlear implant patients. Identification of patients at risk for central auditory system dysfunction may be possible by evaluation of patients’ olfactory function.
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Buechner A1, Brendel M, Krüeger B, Frohne-Büchner C, Nogueira W, Edler B et al. Current steering and results from novel speech coding strategies. Otol Neurotol, 2008; 29(2): 203–7.
2.
Firszt J, Holden L, Reeder R, Skinner M. Speech recognition in cochlear implant recipients. Otol Neurotol, 2009; 30(2): 146–52.
3.
Landsberger D, Srinivasan A. Virtual channel discrimination is improved by current focusing in cochlear implant recipients. Hear Res, 2009; 254(1–2): 34–41.
4.
Gantz B, Dunn C, Oleson J, Hansen M, Parkinson A, Turner C. Multicenter clinical trial of the Nucleus Hybrid S8 cochlear implant: final outcomes. Laryngoscope, 2016; 126(4): 962–73.
5.
Arisi E, Forti S, Pagani D, Todini L, Torretta S, Ambrosetti U et al. Cochlear implantation in adolescents with prelinguistic deafness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2010; 142(6): 804–8.
6.
Mahncke HW, Bronstone A, Merzenich MM. Brain plasticity and functional losses in the aged: Scientific bases for a novel intervention. Prog Brain Res, 2006; 157: 81–109.
7.
Waltzman S, Roland J. Cochlear implantation in children younger than 12 months. Pediatrics, 2005;116(4): e487–93.
8.
Roland J, Cosetti M, Wang K, Immerman S, Waltzman S. Cochlear implantation in the very young child: Long-term safety and efficacy. Laryngoscope, 2009; 119(11): 2205–10.
9.
Miyamoto R, Hay-Mccutcheon M, Iler Kirk K, Houston D, Bergeson-Dana T. Language skills of profoundly deaf children who received cochlear implants under 12 months of age: A preliminary study. Acta Otolaryngol, 2008; 128(4): 373–77.
10.
Connor C, Craig H, Raudenbush S, Heavner K, Zwolan T. The age at which young deaf children receive cochlear implants and their vocabulary and speech-production growth: is there an added value for early implantation? Ear Hear, 2006; 27(6): 628–44.
11.
Skarzynski H, Lorens A, Matusiak M, Porowski M, Skarzynski PH, James CJ. Cochlear implantation with the Nucleus slim straight electrode in subjects with residual low-frequency hearing. Ear Hear, 2014; 35(2): e33–43.
12.
Eshraghi AA, Rodriguez M, Balkany TJ, Telischi FF, Angeli S, Hodges AV et al. Cochlear implant surgery in patients more than seventy-nine years old. Laryngoscope, 2009; 119(6): 1180–83.
13.
Budenz CL, Cosetti MK, Coelho DH, Birenbaum B, Babb J, Waltzman SB et al. The effects of cochlear implantation on speech perception in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2011; 59(3): 446–53.
14.
Carlson ML, Breen JT, Gifford RH, Driscoll CL, Neff BA, Beatty CW et al. Cochlear implantation in the octogenarian and nonagenarian. Otol Neurotol, 2010; 31(8): 1343–49.
15.
Chatelin V, Kim EJ, Driscoll C, Larky J, Polite C, Price L et al. Cochlear implant outcomes in the elderly. Otol Neurotol, 2004; 25(3): 298–301.
16.
Pasanisi E, Bacciu A, Vincenti V, Guida M, Barbot A, Berghenti MT et al. Speech recognition in elderly cochlear implant recipients. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci, 2003; 28(2): 154–57.
17.
Fitzpatrick DC, Campbell AP, Choudhury B, Dillon MT, Forgues M, Buchman CA et al. Round window electrocochleography just before cochlear implantation: Relationship to word recognition outcomes in adults. Otol Neurotol, 2014; 35(1): 64–71. References:.
18.
Mattys S, Davis M, Bradlow A, Scott S. Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2012; 27(7–8): 953–78.
19.
Davis M, Ford M, Kherif F, Johnsrude I. Does semantic context benefit speech understanding through “top-down” processes? Evidence from time-resolved sparse fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci, 2011; 23(12): 3914–32.
20.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders. Technical Report. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
21.
Grimes A, Grady C, Foster N, Sunderland T, Patronas N. Central auditory function in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 1985; 35(3): 352–58.
22.
Strouse A, Hall J, Burger M. Central auditory processing in Alzheimer's disease. Ear Hear, 1995; 16(2): 230–38.
23.
Gates GA, Karzon RK, Garcia P, Peterein J, Storandt M, Morris JC et al. Auditory dysfunction in aging and senile dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Arch Neurol, 1995; 52(6): 626–34.
24.
Gates G, Anderson M, McCurry S, Feeney M, Larson E. Central auditory dysfunction as a harbinger of Alzheimer dementia. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2011; 137(4): 390–95.
25.
Lewis D, Campbell M, Terry R, Morrison J. Laminar and regional distributions of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques in Alzheimer’s disease: A quantitative study of visual and auditory cortices. J Neurosci, 1987; 7(6): 1799–808.
26.
Sinha U, Hollen K, Rodriguez R, Miller C. Auditory system degeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 1993; 43(4): 779–85.
27.
Chen B, Zhong Y, Peng W, Sun Y, Kong W. Age-related changes in the central auditory system: Comparison of d-galactoseinduced aging rats and naturally aging rats. Brain Res, 2010; 1344: 43–53.
28.
Spahr A, Dorman M, Litvak L, Van Wie S, Gifford R, Loizou P et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear, 2012; 33(1): 112–17.
29.
Doty R, Reyes P, Gregor T. Presence of both odor identification and detection deficits in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Res Bull, 1987; 18(5): 597–600.
30.
Doty R, Shaman P, Dann M. Development of the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test: A standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav, 1984; 32(3): 489–502.
31.
Mesholam R, Moberg P, Mahr R, Doty R. Olfaction in neurodegenerative disease. Arch Neurol, 1998; 55(1): 84–90.
32.
Moberg P, Pearlson G, Speedie L, Lipsey J, Strauss M, Folstein S. Olfactory recognition: Differential impairments in early and late Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s diseases. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 1987; 9(6): 650–64.
33.
Mair RG, Doty RL, Kelly KM, Wilson CS, Langlais PJ, McEntee WJ et al. Multimodal sensory discrimination deficits in Korsakoff ’s psychosis. Neuropsychologia, 1986; 24(6): 831–39.
34.
Ahlskog JE, Waring SC, Petersen RC, Esteban-Santillan C, Craig UK, O’Brien PC et al. Olfactory dysfunction in Guamanian ALS, Parkinsonism, and dementia. Neurology, 1998; 51(6): 1672–77.
35.
Devanand DP, Michaels-Marston KS, Liu X, Pelton GH, Padilla M, Marder K et al. Olfactory deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment predict Alzheimer’s disease at followup. Am J Psychiatry, 2000; 157(9): 1399–405.
36.
Tabert MH, Liu X, Doty RL, Serby M, Zamora D, Pelton GH et al: A 10-item smell identification scale related to risk for Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol, 2005; 58(1): 155–60.
37.
Devanand DP, Lee S, Manly J, Andrews H, Schupf N, Doty RL et al. Olfactory deficits predict cognitive decline and Alzheimer dementia in an urban community. Neurology, 2014; 84(2): 182–89.
38.
Takeda A, Baba T, Kikuchi A, Hasegawa T, Sugeno N, Konno M A et al. Olfactory dysfunction and dementia in Parkinson’s disease. J Parkinsons Dis, 2014; 4(2): 181–87.
39.
Attems J, Walker L, Jellinger K. Olfactory bulb involvement in neurodegenerative diseases. Acta Neuropathol, 2014; 127(4): 459–75.
40.
McArdle R, Wilson R. Predicting word-recognition performance in noise by young listeners with normal hearing using acoustic, phonetic, and lexical variables. J Am Acad Audiol, 2008; 19(6): 507–18.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
