Effect of Different References on Auditory-Evoked Potentials in Children with Cochlear Implants.

Maojin Liang, Jiahao Liu, Junpeng Zhang, Junbo Wang, Yuebo Chen, Yuexin Cai, Ling Chen, Yiqing Zheng
Author Information
  1. Maojin Liang: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  2. Jiahao Liu: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  3. Junpeng Zhang: Department of Medical Information and Engineering, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
  4. Junbo Wang: Department of Clinical Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  5. Yuebo Chen: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  6. Yuexin Cai: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  7. Ling Chen: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
  8. Yiqing Zheng: Department of Otolaryngology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.

Abstract

Nose reference (NR), mastoid reference (MR), and montage average reference (MAR) are usually used in auditory event-related potential (AEP) studies with a recently developed reference electrode standardization technique (REST), which may reduce the reference effect. For children with cochlear implants (CIs), auditory deprivation may hinder normal development of the auditory cortex, and the reference effect may be different between CIs and a normal developing group. Thirteen right-side-CI children were recruited, comprising 7 males and 6 females, ages 2-5 years, with CI usage of ~1 year. Eleven sex- and age-matched healthy children were recruited for normal controls; 1,000 Hz pure tone evoked AEPs were recorded, and the data were re-referenced to NR, left mastoid reference (LMR, which is the opposite side of the implanted cochlear), MAR, and REST. CI artifact and P1-N1 complex (latency, amplitudes) at Fz were analyzed. Confirmed P1-N1 complex could be found in Fz using NR, LMR, MAR, and REST with a 128-electrode scalp. P1 amplitude was larger using LMR than MAR and NR, while no statistically significant difference was found between NR and MAR in the CI group; REST had no significant difference with the three other references. In the control group, no statistically significant difference was found with different references. Group difference of P1 amplitude could be found when using MR, MAR, and REST. For P1 latency, no significant difference among the four references was shown, whether in the CI or control group. Group difference in P1 latency could be found in MR and MAR. N1 amplitude in LMR was significantly lower than NR and MAR in the control group. LMR, MAR, and REST could distinguish the difference in the N1 amplitude between the CI and control group. Contralateral MR or MAR was found to be better in differentiating CI children versus controls. No group difference was found for the artifact component. Different references for AEP studies do not affect the CI artifact. In addition, contralateral MR is preferable for P1-N1 component studies involving CI children, as well as methodology-like studies.

Keywords

References

Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Dec 09;5:159 [PMID: 22163216]
IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2012 Jul;20(4):443-54 [PMID: 22328183]
Otol Neurotol. 2012 Sep;33(7):1188-96 [PMID: 22872179]
Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 Feb;95(2):77-93 [PMID: 25219893]
Hear Res. 2006 Feb;212(1-2):212-23 [PMID: 16480841]
J Neurosci. 2011 Jul 6;31(27):9923-32 [PMID: 21734284]
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1988 Jul-Aug;71(4):319-22 [PMID: 2454798]
Ear Hear. 2002 Dec;23(6):532-9 [PMID: 12476090]
Acta Otolaryngol. 2003 Jan;123(2):249-52 [PMID: 12701751]
Hear Res. 2006 Feb;212(1-2):185-202 [PMID: 16459037]
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1998 Jan-Feb;17(1):128-32 [PMID: 9460629]
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1982 Jul;54(1):15-24 [PMID: 6177514]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2005 Nov;116(11):2613-31 [PMID: 16214404]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Nov;117(11):2424-35 [PMID: 16996303]
Physiol Meas. 2001 Nov;22(4):693-711 [PMID: 11761077]
Otorinolaringologia. 2015 Dec;65(4):103-114 [PMID: 27688594]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2009 Nov;120(11):1883-908 [PMID: 19796989]
Neurosci Lett. 2014 Aug 8;577:51-5 [PMID: 24946164]
Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 Feb;95(2):135-44 [PMID: 24780192]
Cereb Cortex. 2011 May;21(5):1042-55 [PMID: 20847153]
Int J Psychophysiol. 2015 Sep;97(3):258-70 [PMID: 25562833]
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1985 Nov;62(6):462-4 [PMID: 2415344]
Int J Psychophysiol. 2013 Apr;88(1):74-81 [PMID: 23454030]
Otol Neurotol. 2014 Jan;35(1):e7-14 [PMID: 24335940]
Hear Res. 2013 Aug;302:84-95 [PMID: 23727626]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Mar;113(3):407-20 [PMID: 11897541]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2006 Aug;117(8):1772-82 [PMID: 16807102]
Psychophysiology. 2001 Sep;38(5):847-57 [PMID: 11577908]
Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Feb;111(2):220-36 [PMID: 10680557]
Trends Neurosci. 2012 Feb;35(2):111-22 [PMID: 22104561]
Psychophysiology. 2013 Dec;50(12):1282-90 [PMID: 23941085]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By