medigraphic.com
ISSN 1527-3172 (Electronic)

2013, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

MEDICC Review 2013; 15 (1)

Cross-modal plasticity in deaf child cochlear implant candidates assessed using visual and somatosensory evoked potentials

Charroó-Ruíz LE, Picó T, Pérez-Abalo MC, Hernández MC, Bermejo S, Bermejo B, Álvarez B, Paz AS, Rodríguez U, Sevila M, Martínez Y, Galán L

Language: English
References: 35
Page: 16-22
PDF size: 696.65 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cross-modal plasticity has been extensively studied in deaf adults with neuroimaging studies, yielding valuable results. A recent study in our laboratory with deaf–blind children found evidence of cross-modal plasticity, revealed in over-representation of median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP N20) in left hemisphere parietal, temporal and occipital regions. This finding led to asking whether SEP N20 changes are peculiar to deaf–blindness or are also present in sighted deaf children.
Objetive: Assess cross-modal plasticity in deaf child cochlear implant candidates using neurophysiological techniques (visual evoked potentials and median nerve somatosensory evoked potentials).
Methods: Participants were 14 prelingually deaf children assessed in the Cuban Cochlear Implant Program. Flash visual-evoked potentials and SEP N20 were recorded at 19 scalp recording sites. Topographic maps were obtained and compared to those of control group children with normal hearing. Analysis took into account duration of hearing loss.
Results: Topographic maps of flash visual-evoked potentials did not show changes in deaf child cochlear implant candidates. However, SEP N20 from right median nerve stimulation did show changes from expansion of cortical activation into the left temporal region in deaf children aged ≥ 7 years, which was interpreted as neurophysiological evidence of cross-modal plasticity, not previously described for this technique and type of somatosensory stimulus. We interpret this finding as due in part to duration of deafness, particularly related to handedness, since expansion was selective for the left hemisphere in the children, who were all right-handed.
Conclusions: Cortical over-representation of SEP N20 in the left temporal region is interpreted as evidence of cross-modal plasticity that occurs if the deaf child does not receive a cochlear implant early in life—before concluding the critical period of neural development—and relies on sign language for communication.


REFERENCES

  1. Dye MW, Hauser PC, Bavelier D. Is visual selective attention in deaf individuals enhanced or defi cient? The case of de useful fi eld of view. PLoS One. 2009 May 20;4(5);e5640.

  2. Finney EM, Clementz BA, Hickok G, Dobkins KR. Visual stimuli activate auditory cortex in deaf subjects: evidence from MEG. Neuroreport. 2003 Aug 6;14(11):1425–7.

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

  4. 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.

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

  6. Neville HJ, Lawson D. Attentation 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.

  7. Meredith MA, Kryklywy J, McMillan AJ, Malhotra Sh, Lum-Tai R, Lomber SG. Crossmodal reorganization in the early deaf switches sensory, but not behavioral roles of auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011 May;108(21):8856–61.

  8. Cohen LG, Celnik P, Pascual-Leone A, Corwell B, Falz L, Dambrosia J, et al. Functional relevance of cross-modal plasticity in blind humans. Nature 1997 Sep 11;389(6647):180–3.

  9. Sherman C. Br ain areas that serve specifi c functions for vision or hearing can take on a corresponding role for other senses in people who are blind or deaf. BrainWork. The Neuroscience Letter Winter 2011 [Internet]. New York: Dana’s Foundation; 2011 [cited 2011 Oct 20]. 2 p. Available from: http://www.google.com.cu/url?sa=t&r ct=j&q=Brain+areas+that+serve+specific+functi ons+for+vision+or+hearing+can+take+on+a+co rresponding+role+for+other+senses+in+people +who+are+blind+or+deaf.+&source=web&cd=1 &ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdana .org%2FuploadedFiles%2FNews_and_Publicatio ns%2FBrainWork%2FBrainWork_Jan2011_Sen ses.pdf&ei=Lem8UKiGFY2FyQH0mICgCQ&usg =AFQjCNE5BSjwH_XZXe28R7P5PHF4OaOZlA

  10. Sadato N, Yamada H, Okada T, Yoshida M, Hasegawa T, Matsuki K, et al. Age-dependent plasticity in the superior temporal sulcus in deaf humans: a functional MRI study. BMC Neurosci. 2004 Dec;8;5:56.

  11. 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.

  12. Sadato N, Pascual-Leone A, Gramfan 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.

  13. Newman AJ, Bavelier D, Corina D, Jezzard P, Neville HJ. A critical period for right hemisphere recruitment in American Sign Language processing. Nat Neurosci. 2002 Jan;5(1):76–80.

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

  15. Bavelier D, Brozinsky C, Tomann A, Mitchell T, Neville H, Liu G. Impact of early deafness and early exposure to sign language on the cerebral organization for motion processing. J Neurosci. 2001 Nov 15;21(22):8931–42.

  16. 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.

  17. Buckley KA, Tobey EA. Cross-modal plasticity and speech perception in pre- and postlingually deaf cochlear implant users. Ear Hear. 2010 Feb;32(1):2–15.

  18. Charroó-Ruíz L, Pérez-Abalo MC, Hernández MC, Álvarez B, Bermejo B, Bermejo S, et al. Cross-modal plasticity in Cuban visuallyimpaired child cochlear implant candidates: topography of somatosensory evoked potentials. MEDICC Rev. 2012 Apr;14(2):23–9.

  19. Charroó-Ruíz 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.

  20. Charroó-Ruíz 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, 77–114. Spanish.

  21. Standards for short latency somatosensory evoked potentials. Milwaukee: American Clinical Neurophysiology Society; c2008. 13 p.

  22. Díaz-Comas L, Borrego M, Bobes MA. Sistema para la obtención y análisis de Potenciales Evocados Endógenos de alta densidad. Memorias del I Congreso Internacional de BioInformática 2004. Havana: [publisher unknown]; c2004. ISBN: 959 237 117 2. Spanish.

  23. Chiappa KH, Hill RA. Principles of evoked potential. Short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials: Interpretation. In: Chiappa KH, editor. Evoked Potentials in Clinical Medicine. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott–Raven; 1997. p. 24–26, 341–400.

  24. Galán L, Biscay R, Rodriguez JL, Pérez-Abalo MC, Rodríguez R. 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.

  25. Rebillard G, Rebillard M, Pujol R. Factors affecting the recording of visual-evoked potentials from the deaf cat primary auditory cortex (AI). Brain Res. 1980 Apr 21;188(1):252–4.

  26. Kral A, Schröder JH, Klinke R, Engel AK. Absence off cross-modal reorganization in the primary auditory cortex of congenitally deaf cats. Exp Brain Res. 2003 Dec;153(4):605–13.

  27. Stewart DL, Starr A. Absence of visually infl uenced cells in auditory cortex of normal and congenitally deaf cats. Exp Neurol. 1970 Sep;28(3):525–8.

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

  29. 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 Jul;9(3):431–40.

  30. Levänen S, Hamdorf D. Feeling vibrations: enhanced tactile sensitivity in congenitally deaf humans. Neurosci Lett. 2001 Mar 23;301(1):75–7.

  31. 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.

  32. Valdés M, Rodríguez V, Charroó L. Cortical Brain Plasticity in deaf-blind children. Proceedings of the XIX IERASG BIENNIAL SYMPOSIUM; 2005; Granada, Spain.

  33. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Kral A. The infl uence of a sensitive period on central auditory development in children with unilateral and bilateral cochlear implants. Hear Res. 2005 May;203(1–2):134–43.

  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. Malkowicz DE, Myers G, Leisman G. Rehabilitation of cortical visual impairment in children. Int J Neurosci. 2006 Sep;116(9):1015–33.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com