Atılım Atılgan, Hüsna Yoktan Talay, Mustafa Yüksel, Ayça Çiprut
{"title":"Is Contralateral Suppression of Otoacoustic Emission Observable in Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users With Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder?","authors":"Atılım Atılgan, Hüsna Yoktan Talay, Mustafa Yüksel, Ayça Çiprut","doi":"10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to explore the presence of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions (CS-OAEs) in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We enrolled three unilateral CI users with bilateral ANSD and stable otoacoustic emissions in the nonimplanted ear, exhibiting diverse postsynaptic ANSD backgrounds including cerebellar ataxia, areflexia, pes cavus, optic atrophy, sensorineural hearing loss syndrome, Optic Atrophy Plus Syndrome, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia. Measurements of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were conducted both with and without contralateral electrical stimulation (CES) across five frequency bands. CES was delivered via a CI using a direct audio input cable connected to a computer. In order to elicit a response, broad-band noise is applied and presented at a comfortable level.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Minor amplitude reductions (between 0.2 and 0.6 dB SPL) were observed in TEOAEs with CES across different frequencies for each subject. Despite these changes, there was no prominent suppression effect observed, which emphasizes the differences in CS-OAE responses among individuals with postsynaptic ANSD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The absence of significant CS-OAE suppression suggests that direct electrical stimulation through CES may not consistently engage the efferent auditory system in patients with postsynaptic ANSD characteristics. It is essential to broaden the study population to encompass a more diverse range of ANSD presentations in order to confirm the effectiveness of CES in stimulating efferent pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00199","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to explore the presence of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions (CS-OAEs) in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD).
Method: We enrolled three unilateral CI users with bilateral ANSD and stable otoacoustic emissions in the nonimplanted ear, exhibiting diverse postsynaptic ANSD backgrounds including cerebellar ataxia, areflexia, pes cavus, optic atrophy, sensorineural hearing loss syndrome, Optic Atrophy Plus Syndrome, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia. Measurements of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were conducted both with and without contralateral electrical stimulation (CES) across five frequency bands. CES was delivered via a CI using a direct audio input cable connected to a computer. In order to elicit a response, broad-band noise is applied and presented at a comfortable level.
Results: Minor amplitude reductions (between 0.2 and 0.6 dB SPL) were observed in TEOAEs with CES across different frequencies for each subject. Despite these changes, there was no prominent suppression effect observed, which emphasizes the differences in CS-OAE responses among individuals with postsynaptic ANSD.
Conclusions: The absence of significant CS-OAE suppression suggests that direct electrical stimulation through CES may not consistently engage the efferent auditory system in patients with postsynaptic ANSD characteristics. It is essential to broaden the study population to encompass a more diverse range of ANSD presentations in order to confirm the effectiveness of CES in stimulating efferent pathways.
目的:本研究旨在探讨伴有听神经病变谱障碍(ANSD)的单侧人工耳蜗(CI)使用者对侧耳声发射(cs - oae)抑制的存在。方法:我们招募了三名单侧CI使用者,他们患有双侧ANSD,未植入耳的耳声发射稳定,表现出不同的突触后ANSD背景,包括小脑共济失调、反射性屈曲、弓形足、视神经萎缩、感音神经性听力损失综合征、视神经萎缩综合征和脊髓小脑共济失调。在有和没有对侧电刺激(CES)的情况下,对5个频段进行了瞬态诱发耳声发射(teoae)的测量。CES是通过连接到计算机的直接音频输入电缆通过CI传送的。为了引起响应,宽带噪声被施加并呈现在一个舒适的水平。结果:每个受试者在不同频率的teoae中观察到轻微的振幅降低(在0.2至0.6 dB SPL之间)。尽管有这些变化,但没有观察到明显的抑制作用,这强调了突触后ANSD个体间CS-OAE反应的差异。结论:没有明显的CS-OAE抑制表明,在具有突触后ANSD特征的患者中,通过CES的直接电刺激可能不会持续地参与传出听觉系统。为了确认CES刺激传出通路的有效性,有必要扩大研究人群,以涵盖更多样化的ANSD表现。
期刊介绍:
Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work.
Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.