Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome

Cochlear implants work well, yet the outcome is not fully accounted by the data routinely available to the clinician, and remains unpredictable. A more in-depth understanding of the neural mechanisms that determine the clinical recovery after cochlear implantation is warranted, as they may provide the background for an accurate individual prognosis. In this study in post-lingually deaf adults, we show that while clinical data offer only prognosis trends, fMRI data can prospectively distinguish good from poor implant performers. We show that those deaf cochlear implant (CI) candidates who will become good performers rely on a dorsal phonological route when performing a rhyming task on written regular words. In contrast, those who will become poor performers involve a ventral temporo-frontal route to perform the same task, and abnormally recruit the right supramarginal gyrus, a region that is contralateral to classical phonological regions. These functional patterns reveal that deafness either enhances "normal" phonological processing, or prompts a substitution of phonological processing by lexico-semantic processing. These findings thus suggest that a simple behavioral pre-operative exploration of phonological strategies during reading, to determine which route is predominantly used by CI candidates, might fruitfully inform the outcome.

[1]  D Bavelier,et al.  Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[3]  K E Spens,et al.  Cognitive correlates of visual speech understanding in hearing-impaired individuals. , 2001, Journal of deaf studies and deaf education.

[4]  Donald K. Eddington,et al.  Cochlear Implants in Adults and Children , 1995 .

[5]  Argye E Hillis,et al.  The right place at the right time? , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[6]  Klaus Kayser,et al.  To be at the right place at the right time , 2011, Diagnostic pathology.

[7]  Christine Preibisch,et al.  Evidence for compensation for stuttering by the right frontal operculum , 2003, NeuroImage.

[8]  Eric Truy,et al.  Visual speech circuits in profound acquired deafness: a possible role for latent multimodal connectivity. , 2007, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[9]  Á. Pascual-Leone,et al.  Improved picture naming in chronic aphasia after TMS to part of right Broca’s area: An open-protocol study , 2005, Brain and Language.

[10]  Amir Raz,et al.  Ecological nuances in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): psychological stressors, posture, and hydrostatics , 2005, NeuroImage.

[11]  M. Lassonde,et al.  Cross-modal reorganization and speech perception in cochlear implant users. , 2006, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[12]  J. Ziegler,et al.  Developmental dyslexia and the dual route model of reading: Simulating individual differences and subtypes , 2008, Cognition.

[13]  Hyejin Kang,et al.  Preoperative differences of cerebral metabolism relate to the outcome of cochlear implants in congenitally deaf children , 2005, Hearing Research.

[14]  J. S. Lee,et al.  Deafness: Cross-modal plasticity and cochlear implants , 2001, Nature.

[15]  Eric Truy,et al.  The contribution of visual areas to speech comprehension: a PET study in cochlear implants patients and normal-hearing subjects , 2002, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  A. Giraud,et al.  Implicit Multisensory Associations Influence Voice Recognition , 2006, PLoS biology.

[17]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Measures of Working Memory Span and Verbal Rehearsal Speed in Deaf Children after Cochlear Implantation , 2003, Ear and hearing.

[18]  D. LeBihan,et al.  Phonological Grammar Shapes the Auditory Cortex: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study , 2003, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  K. Green,et al.  Predictors of audiological outcome following cochlear implantation in adults , 2007, Cochlear implants international.

[20]  Virginie van Wassenhove,et al.  Auditory-visual fusion in speech perception in children with cochlear implants. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  L H Mens,et al.  Predictors of cochlear implant performance. , 1999, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[22]  Lafon Jc AUDIOMETRY WITH THE PHONETIC TEST , 1964 .

[23]  Nadine Martin,et al.  Measurements of auditory-verbal STM span in aphasia: Effects of item, task, and lexical impairment , 2004, Brain and Language.

[24]  Bernard Mazoyer,et al.  Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing , 2006, NeuroImage.

[25]  Michael J. Brammer,et al.  Enhanced activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in deaf and dyslexic adults during rhyming , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[26]  D W Proops,et al.  Outcomes from adult implantation, the first 100 patients , 1999, The Journal of Laryngology & Otology.

[27]  P J Blamey,et al.  Variation In Speech Perception Scores Among Children with Cochlear Implants , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[28]  James R. Booth,et al.  Specialization of phonological and semantic processing in Chinese word reading , 2006, Brain Research.

[29]  Marie-Noëlle Metz-Lutz,et al.  Phonological processing in relation to reading: An fMRI study in deaf readers , 2007, NeuroImage.

[30]  Emily Buss,et al.  Cochlear Implantation in Patients with Substantial Residual Hearing , 2004, The Laryngoscope.

[31]  Masato Taira,et al.  Reading in a Regular Orthography: An fMRI Study Investigating the Role of Visual Familiarity , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[32]  S. Koyama,et al.  Neural correlates of auditory feedback control in human , 2007, Neuroscience.

[33]  Kenneth Hugdahl,et al.  Processing of sub-syllabic speech units in the posterior temporal lobe: An fMRI study , 2005, NeuroImage.

[34]  Sang Heun Lee,et al.  Receptive language skills of profoundly hearing-impaired children with cochlear implants , 2004, Cochlear implants international.

[35]  Y. Sugita,et al.  Auditory-visual speech perception examined by fMRI and PET , 2003, Neuroscience Research.

[36]  Guillaume Thierry,et al.  Hemispheric Dissociation in Access to the Human Semantic System , 2003, Neuron.

[37]  B. Dodd,et al.  Review of visual speech perception by hearing and hearing-impaired people: clinical implications. , 2009, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[38]  Richard S. J. Frackowiak,et al.  Cross-Modal Plasticity Underpins Language Recovery after Cochlear Implantation , 2001, Neuron.

[39]  Argye E Hillis,et al.  Recovery from aphasia following brain injury: the role of reorganization. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[40]  A. Giraud,et al.  Cortical activity at rest predicts cochlear implantation outcome. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

[41]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[42]  T. Nikolopoulos,et al.  Determinants of speech perception in children after cochlear implantation , 2000, The Lancet.

[43]  B. Fraysse,et al.  Evidence that cochlear-implanted deaf patients are better multisensory integrators , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[44]  Graeme M. Clark,et al.  Cochlear implants in adults and children. , 1995, NIH consensus statement.

[45]  Hyo-Jeong Lee,et al.  Predicting cochlear implant outcome from brain organisation in the deaf. , 2007, Restorative neurology and neuroscience.