Changes in response characteristics of cortical auditory evoked potentials in bilateral cochlear implantees

Sathiya Murali, Sunil Goyal, Kiran Natarajan, Senthil Vadivu Arumugam, Neha Chauhan, Mohan Kameswaran


Background: Cochlear implants (CIs) represents the most successful intervention to restore hearing in profoundly hearing impaired children and adults. An objective measures such as cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) would provide more insights to the auditory process involved in post implantation. Aim of the study was to profile the change in response characteristics of CAEPs in simultaneous binaural cochlear implantees. Objective was to measure change in latency and amplitude in monoaural and binaural condition for speech stimulus with change in intensities.

Methods: Ours study is an observational retrospective study done at a tertiary ENT referral centre in south India, between Jan 2014 to Dec 2015. Out of total 15 patients with bilateral cochlear implantation, 7 consecutive bilateral simultaneous cochlear implantees with chronological age between 2-6 years were included in the study. Only pre-lingual congenital hearing loss children with no syndromic associations and normal cochlear anatomy were included while, peri-lingual, post-lingual children and children with sequential bilateral implantation were excluded from the study.  

Results: Amplitude of P1 was higher for binaural stimulation compared to monoaural stimulation. Latency of P1 was smaller for binaural compared to monoaural stimulus. In monaural stimulation the latency of P1 was smaller in right ear compared to left ear. However the difference between the right ear, left ear and binaural conditions were not statistically significant. Ours is a preliminary study and more bilateral implantees will be included in future studies to give more power to the study.

Conclusions: We suggest that CAEPs can be used as a useful objective tool for assessment of post CI outcome.


Cochlear implantation, Cortical auditory evoked potentials, P1 latency, P1 amplitude, Prelingual deafness, Congenital hearing loss, Objective test

Full Text:



Grothe B, Pecka M, McAlpine D. Mechanisms of sound localization in mammals. Physiological Rev. 2010;90(3):983-1012.

Van Deun L, Van Wieringen A, Van den Bogaert T, Scherf F, Offeciers FE, Van de Heyning PH, et al. Sound localization, sound lateralization, and binaural masking level differences in young children with normal hearing. Ear Hearing. 2009;30(2):178-90.

Bocca E. Binaural hearing: Another approach. The Laryngoscope. 1955;65(12):1164-71.

Blegvad B. Binaural summation of surface-recorded electrocochleographic responses normal-hearing subjects. Scandinavian Audiol. 1975;4(4):233-8.

Hawley ML, Litovsky RY, Culling JF. The benefit of binaural hearing in a cocktail party: Effect of location and type of interferer. J Acoustical Society Am. 2004;115(2):833-43.

Van Wanrooij MM, Van Opstal AJ. Contribution of head shadow and pinna cues to chronic monaural sound localization. J Neurosci. 2004;24(17):4163-71.

Litovsky R, Parkinson A, Arcaroli J, Sammeth C. Simultaneous bilateral cochlear implantation in adults: a multicenter clinical study. Ear Hearing. 2006;27(6):714.

McPherson DL, Ballachanda B, Kaf W. Middle and long latency auditory evoked potentials. Audiology Diagnosis. New York: Ed Thieme; 2000: 471-501.

Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK, Shepherd R. Maturation of the cortical auditory evoked potential in infants and young children. Hearing Res. 2006;212(1):185-202.

Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Thorne PR. Auditory evoked potentials as measures of plasticity in humans. Audiol Neurotol. 2001;6(4):211-5.

Ponton CW, Don M. Cortical auditory evoked potentials recorded from cochlear implant users: methods and applications. Cochlear Implants: Objective Measures. 2003: 187-230.

Culling JF, Jelfs S, Talbert A, Grange JA, Backhouse SS. The benefit of bilateral versus unilateral cochlear implantation to speech intelligibility in noise. Ear Hearing. 2012;33(6):673-82.

Bauer PW, Sharma A, Martin K, Dorman M. Central auditory development in children with bilateral cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngology–Head Neck Surg. 2006;132(10):1133-6.

Litovsky RY, Goupell MJ, Godar S, Grieco-Calub T, Jones GL, Garadat SN, et al. Studies on bilateral cochlear implants at the University of Wisconsin’s Binaural Hearing and Speech Laboratory. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(6):476-94.

Brill S, Müller J, Hagen R, Möltner A, Brockmeier S-J, Stark T, et al. Site of cochlear stimulation and its effect on electrically evoked compound action potentials using the MED-EL standard electrode array. Biomedical Engineering Online. 2009;8(1):1.