medigraphic.com
ISSN 1527-3172 (Electronic)

2012, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

MEDICC Review 2012; 14 (2)

Cross-modal plasticity in cuban visually-impaired child cochlear implant candidates: Topography of somatosensory evoked potentials

Charroó-Ruíz LE, Pérez-Abalo MC, Hernández MC, Álvarez B, Bermejo B, Bermejo S, Galán L, Díaz-Comas L

Language: English
References: 38
Page: 23-29
PDF size: 209.89 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction Studies of neuroplasticity have shown that the brain's neural networks change in the absence of sensory input such as hearing or vision. However, little is known about what happens when both sensory modalities are lost (deaf-blindness). Hence, this study of cortical reorganization in visually-impaired child cochlear implant (CI) candidates.
Objective: Assess cross-modal plasticity, specifically cortical reorganization for tactile representation in visually-impaired child CI candidates, through study of topography of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP).
Methods: From April through September 2005, SEP from median and tibial nerve electrical stimulation were studied in 12 visually-impaired child CI candidates aged 3–15 years and 23 healthy controls. Following placement of 19 recording electrodes using the International 10-20 System , SEP were recorded and then processed. Topographic maps were obtained for SEP N20 (median nerve) and SEP P40 (tibial nerve), permitting assessment of cortical reorganization by comparing visually-impaired, deaf children's maps with those of healthy children by means of visual inspection and statistical comparison using a permutation test.
Results: SEP N20 topography was significantly more extensive in visually-impaired child CI candidates than in healthy children. An asymmetrical pattern occurred from the expansion of hand tactile activation into the temporal and occipital regions in the left hemisphere on right median nerve stimulation. This did not occur for SEP P40 on tibial nerve stimulation (right and left). Magnitude of expanded SEP N20 response was related to severity of visual impairment and longer duration of dual sensory loss.
Conclusions: Changes in SEP N20 topography are evidence of cross-modal plasticity in visually-impaired child CI candidates, appearing to result from a complex interaction between severity of visual impairment and duration of multisensory deprivation.



REFERENCES

  1. Bavelier D, Neville H. Cross-modal plasticity: where and how? Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Jun;3(6):443–52.

  2. Neville HJ, Bavelier D, Corina D, Rauschecker J, Karni A, Lalwani A, et al. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998 Feb 3;95(3):922–9.

  3. Bavelier D, Tomann A, Hutton C, Mitchell T, Corina D, Liu G, et al. Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. J Neurosci. 2000 Sep 1;20(17):RC93.

  4. Finney E, Fine I, Dobkins K. Visual stimuli activate auditory cortex in the deaf. Nat Neurosci. 2001 Dec;4(12):1171–3.

  5. Sadato N, Pascual-Leone A, Gramfman J, Ibañez V, Deiber MP, Dold G, et al. Activation of the primary visual cortex by Braille reading in blind subjects. Nature. 1996 Apr 11;380(6574):526–8.

  6. Osaki Y, Doi K, Takasawa M, Noda K, Nishimura H, Ihara A, et al. Cortical processing of tactile language in a postlingually deaf-blind subject. Neuroreport. 2004 Feb 9;15(2):287–91.

  7. Obretenova S, Halko MA, Plow EB, Pascual- Leone A, Merabet LB. Neuroplasticity associated with tactile language communication in a deafblind subject. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Jan 4;3:60.

  8. Merabet LB, Pascual-Leone A. Neural reorganization following sensory loss: the opportunity of change. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Jan;11(1):44– 52.

  9. Chute PM, Nevis ME. Cochlear implants in people who are deaf-blind. J Visual Impairm Blindness. 1995 May–Jun;89(3):297–301.

  10. Saeed SR, Ramsden RT, Axon PR. Cochlear implantation in the deaf-blind. Am J Otol. 1998 Nov;19(6):774–7.

  11. El-Kashlan HK, Boerst A, Telian SA. Multichannel cochlear implantation in visually impaired patients. Otol Neurotol. 2001 Jan;22(1):53–6.

  12. Filipo R, Bosco E, Mancini P, Ballantyne D. Cochlear implants in special cases: deafness in the presence of disabilities and/or associated problems. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 2004 May;(552):74–80.

  13. Charroó L, Hernández R, Pérez-Abalo M, Machado C, Galán L, Aznielle T. Potenciales Evocados. Técnicas neurofi sológicas y aplicaciones clínicas. Havana: Editorial Academia; 2001. p. 1–25 and 77–114. Spanish.

  14. Standards for short latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Bloomfi eld (US): American Clinical Neurophysiology Society; 2006.

  15. Kakigi R, Shibasaki H. Effects of age, gender, and stimulus side on the scalp topography of somatosensory evoked potentials following median nerve stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1991 Jul;8(3):320–30.

  16. Kakigi R, Shibasaki H. Effects of age, gender, and stimulus side on the scalp topography of somatosensory evoked potentials following posterior tibial nerve stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1992;9(3):431–40.

  17. MRIsafety.com [Internet]. California (US): Shellock R&D Services, Inc; c2012. Cochlear Implants; [cited 2002 Apr 27]. Available from: http://mrisafe ty.com/safety_article.asp?subject=22.

  18. Colenbrander A. Visual standards. Aspects and ranges of vision loss, with emphasis on population surveys [Internet]. Sydney: International Council of Ophthalmology; 2002 April. Resolution adopted by the International Council of Ophthalmology; [cited 2011 Mar 7]; p 2. Available from: www.icoph.org/pdf/visualstandardsreport.pdf.

  19. Colenbrander A. Visual standards. Aspects and ranges of vision loss, with emphasis on population surveys [Internet]. Sydney: International Council of Ophthalmology; 2002 Apr [cited 2002 Apr 27]. 33 p. Available from: http://www.icoph .org/downloads/visualstandardsreport.pdf.

  20. Charroó L, Aznielle T, Borrego M, Antelo JA, Díaz-Comas L, Suárez A, et al. Adquisición de la respuesta cortical del Potencial Evocado Somatosensorial del nervio tibial con múltiples derivaciones de registro. Rev Ing Electrónica, Automática y Comunicaciones. 2005;16(2):39– 44. Spanish.

  21. Chiappa KH, Hill RA. Short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials: Interpretation. In: Chiappa KH, editor. Evoked Potentials in Clinical Medicine. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven; 1997 Mar 24. p. 341–400.

  22. Díaz-Comas L, Borrego M, Bobes MA, Galán L, Carbonell F. Sistema para la obtención y análisis de Potenciales Evocados Endógenos de alta densidad. Memorias del I Congreso Internacional de BioInformática 2004. Havana: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (CU); 2004. Spanish.

  23. Galán L, Biscay R, Rodríguez JL, Carbonell F, Valdés P. Testing topographic differences between event related brain potentials by using non-parametric combinations of permutation tests. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1997 Mar;102(3):240–7.

  24. Nikolopoulos TP. Outcomes and predictors in cochlear implantation [doctoral thesis]. [Nottingham (UK)]: University of Nottingham; 2000. p. 138 and p. 166.

  25. Gilley PM, Sharma A, Mitchell TV, Dorman MF. The infl uence of a sensitive period for auditory-visual integration in children with cochlear implants. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2010;28(2):207–18.

  26. Tomblin JB, Barker BA, Spencer LJ, Zhang X, Gantz BJ. The effect of age at cochlear implant initial stimulation on expressive language growth in infants and toddlers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Aug;48(4):853–67.

  27. Neville HJ, Lawson D. Attention to central and peripheral visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related potential and behavioural study. II. Congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res. 1987 Mar 10;405(2):268–83.

  28. Sadato N, Okada T, Honda M, Yonekura Y. Critical period for cross-modal plasticity in blind humans: a functional MRI study. Neuroimage. 2002 Jun;16(2):389–400.

  29. Stevens AA, Weaver KE. Functional characteristics of auditory cortex in the blind. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Jan 3;196(1):134–8.

  30. Auer ET Jr, Bernstein LE, Sungkarat W, Singh M. Vibrotactile activation of the auditory cortices in deaf versus hearing adults. Neuroreport. 2007 May 7;18(7):645–8.

  31. Collignon O, Lassonde M, Lepore F, Bastien D, Veraart C. Functional cerebral reorganization for auditory spatial processing and auditory substitution of vision in early blind subjects. Cereb Cortex. 2007 Feb;17(2):457–65.

  32. Voss P, Gougoux F, Zatorre RJ, Lassonde M, Lepore F. Differential occipital responses in early- and late-blind individuals during a soundsource discrimination task. Neuroimage. 2008 Apr 1;40(2):746–58.

  33. Neville HJ, Schmidt A, Kutas M. Altered visualevoked potentials in congenitally deaf adults. Brain Res. 1983 Apr 25;266(1):127–32.

  34. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear. 2002 Dec;23(6):532–9.

  35. Nikolopoulos TP, Lioumi D, Stamaki S, O´Donoghue GM. Evidence based overview of ophthalmic disorders in deaf children: a literature update. Otol Neurotol. 2006 Feb 27;27(2 Suppl 1):S1–24.

  36. Giraldo G. Breaking the sound barrier: Cuba’s Cochlear Implant Program. MEDICC Rev. 2010 Winter;12(1):13–6.

  37. Vlastarakos PV, Proikas K, Papacharalampous G, Exadaktylou I, Mochloulis G, Nikolopoulos TP. Cochlear implantation under the fi rst year of age—The outcomes. A critical systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2010 Feb;74(2):119–26.

  38. Moller C. Deafblindness: living with sensory deprivation. Lancet. 2003 Dec;362 Suppl:S46–7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com