1 / 30

Ruth Litovsky University of Wisconsin Madison, WI USA

Ruth Litovsky University of Wisconsin Madison, WI USA. Brain Plasticity and Development in Children and Adults with Cochlear Implants. Litovsky@waisman.wisc.edu http:/ /www.waisman.wisc.edu. Waisman DWE June 23 2013. How are CI users doing?.

mave
Download Presentation

Ruth Litovsky University of Wisconsin Madison, WI USA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ruth LitovskyUniversity of WisconsinMadison, WI USA Brain Plasticity and Development in Children and Adults with Cochlear Implants Litovsky@waisman.wisc.edu http://www.waisman.wisc.edu Waisman DWE June 23 2013

  2. How are CI users doing? The CI converts acoustic input into electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve to provide: • Speech/Language • Music • Sound localization • Quality of life • Etc…

  3. How are CI users doing? World-wide ~ 250,000 recipients • Speech/Language • Music • Sound localization • Quality of life • Etc…

  4. How are CI users doing? • Is the glass “half full” or “half empty” ? • The field has come a long way…. Many CI users have excellent speech production and receptive language skills. • But, other CI users struggle to attain speech and language, especially without “speech reading” (auditory only)

  5. Language comprehension Language expression Niparko et al. (2010)

  6. Our recent research shows that:1) Language perception: most children are within 1 SD of mean2) Language production: >50% children +/- 1SD; some are below Language expression Language comprehension

  7. Who are the children we study? • Bilateral cochlear implants • High maternal education • SES is generally high • Children have high IQ and memory testing scores • Not typical of CI population, but likely provide information on “best possible outcomes”

  8. Bilateral Cochlear Implants • Bilateral CIs provided to growing number of patients. • Goal: Improve hearing in noise, sound localization, quality of life. • Age of bilateral activation in many clinics is 12 months or younger. • But are we providing them with the best possible input that will maximize outcomes?

  9. Studies in adults: Sound localization in Noise 0 º 10 º -10 º -20 º 20 º -30 º 30 º -40 º 40 º -50 º 50 º

  10. Sound localization error is lower using 2 CIs compared with 1 Unilateral CI Bilateral CI Normal: 6.7° Bilateral: 25.3° Unilateral: 77.7° Mean RMS Localization Errors Jones et al. (Litovsky lab)

  11. Localization with CIs is much poorer than normal hearing listeners Unilateral CI Bilateral CI Normal: 6.7° Unilateral: 77.7° Normal hearing Mean RMS Localization Errors Jones et al. (under preparation)

  12. Sound Localization in 5-12 yr. olds

  13. RMS error: Sound Localization in 5-12 yr. olds Normal Hearing BiCI GAP NH vs. CI Unilateral Bilateral Litovsky and Godar (2010) Grieco-Calub and Litovsky (2010) Review; Litovsky (2011)

  14. Testing “toddlers”: (2-3 years old) Left/Right Discrimination Orienting to sound Grieco-Calub, Litovsky, Werner (2008) Grieco-Calub & Litovsky (2012)

  15. Right – Left Discrimination (MAA) ????? 10 unable To perform the task With Uni CIs Unable to perform the task Experience with Bilateral CIs < 12 months > 12 months Normal Hearing Bilateral CIs Grieco-Calub, Litovsky, Werner (2008) Grieco-Calub & Litovsky (2012)

  16. Toddlers: Reaching for sound(Ecologically / motivating task) Stimulus When I hide I say… Litovsky et al. (2012, in press)

  17. Results • All toddlers tested with the “Reaching for sound” test were able to discriminate Left vs. Right. • However, their ability to localize was poorer than normal-hearing toddlers. • ? Do they simply not have a well developed map of space? • ? Are the processors not providing them with ideal cues for localizing?

  18. Some factors affecting performance Signal processing compromises acoustic cues Behind-the-ear (BTE) location of microphones Location of electrode within the cochlea Neural pathway degradation Difference in the insertion of electrodes between ears

  19. Brain “Plasticity” • In order for cochlear implants to be able to work, the brain has to adapt to new information, to convert electrical signals to meaningful everyday sounds (speech, music, etc.). • Plasticity is the brain’s ability to change, re-organize, respond to new information.

  20. Experience, plasticity…… Later-onset deafness Spatial map emerges or re-emerges Deaf Unilateral Bilateral Birth (deaf) 1st CI 2nd CI Hearing age Length of Bilateral Experience Chronological age at CI1

  21. “Plasticity” • Depends on history, etiology. • Depends where in the brain we look. • More plasticity at “higher” centers. More hard-wired at lower centers (training may be critical). • Important to get the peripheral information to be as good as it can be.

  22. Other sources of limitations: • Today’s CIs are Bilateral Because…. The CIs in the two ears function independently.  No guarantee that stimuli will activate devices such that ITDs or ILDs are preserved with fidelity • Goal: to provide Binauralhearing

  23. Next Step: Reverse Engineering Using Research Processors Using a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) to load binaural software and interface with a binaural “card” for hardware (in collaboration with UT Dallas). Research processors provided by CI manufacturers to control inputs to the two ears “at the bench”

  24. Final note: Bottom-up & Top-down • What about other sources of variability? • Cognitive • Executive function • Memory • Incidental learning • How does brain plasticity interact with these? Misurelli and Litovsky, in prep.

  25. Conclusions • We are looking to close the gap between bilateralCI users and NH binaural listeners. • Optimizing localization in bilaterally implanted children may require experience with binaural cues. • Cognition and top-down processes may play an important role.

  26. Thanks to the Binaural Lab Univ. of Wisconsin Madison Waisman Center Work funded by NIH-NIDCD R01-DC003083 & R01-DC008365

  27. Exp. 1: Discriminating Right vs. Left • Child only sees 2 holes in curtain: • +/- 60 • +/-45 • +/-30 • +/-15 Test at each pair to determine if child can:  discriminate Left vs. Right  bilaterally vs. unilaterally Litovsky et al. (2012, in press)

  28. Even though they can discriminate L-R, BiCI toddlers find it harder than NH toddlers * * Litovsky et al. (2013)

  29. Exp. 2: Localizing (9 alternative forced choice) Children with Normal Hearing

  30. Exp. 2: Localizing (9 alternative forced choice) Children with Normal Hearing

More Related