View in EDS PDF Full Text

Is Contralateral Suppression of Otoacoustic Emission Observable in Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users With Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Is Contralateral Suppression of Otoacoustic Emission Observable in Unilateral Cochlear Implant Users With Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder?
Authors: Atılgan, Atılım1 atilim.atilgan@medeniyet.edu.tr, Talay, Hüsna Yoktan2,3, Yüksel, Mustafa4, Çiprut, Ayça5
Source: American Journal of Audiology. Sep2025, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p734-741. 8p.
Subject Terms: *Auditory perception testing, Cochlear implants, Optic nerve diseases, T-test (Statistics), Sensorineural hearing loss, Otoacoustic emissions, Auditory neuropathy, Cerebellar ataxia, Data analysis software
Abstract: Purpose: This study aims to explore the presence of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions (CS-OAEs) in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). Method: We enrolled three unilateral CI users with bilateral ANSD and stable otoacoustic emissions in the nonimplanted ear, exhibiting diverse postsynaptic ANSD backgrounds including cerebellar ataxia, areflexia, pes cavus, optic atrophy, sensorineural hearing loss syndrome, Optic Atrophy Plus Syndrome, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia. Measurements of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were conducted both with and without contralateral electrical stimulation (CES) across five frequency bands. CES was delivered via a CI using a direct audio input cable connected to a computer. In order to elicit a response, broad-band noise is applied and presented at a comfortable level. Results: Minor amplitude reductions (between 0.2 and 0.6 dB SPL) were observed in TEOAEs with CES across different frequencies for each subject. Despite these changes, there was no prominent suppression effect observed, which emphasizes the differences in CS-OAE responses among individuals with postsynaptic ANSD. Conclusions: The absence of significant CS-OAE suppression suggests that direct electrical stimulation through CES may not consistently engage the efferent auditory system in patients with postsynaptic ANSD characteristics. It is essential to broaden the study population to encompass a more diverse range of ANSD presentations in order to confirm the effectiveness of CES in stimulating efferent pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of American Journal of Audiology is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:Purpose: This study aims to explore the presence of contralateral suppression of otoacoustic emissions (CS-OAEs) in unilateral cochlear implant (CI) users with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). Method: We enrolled three unilateral CI users with bilateral ANSD and stable otoacoustic emissions in the nonimplanted ear, exhibiting diverse postsynaptic ANSD backgrounds including cerebellar ataxia, areflexia, pes cavus, optic atrophy, sensorineural hearing loss syndrome, Optic Atrophy Plus Syndrome, and Spinocerebellar Ataxia. Measurements of transient-evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs) were conducted both with and without contralateral electrical stimulation (CES) across five frequency bands. CES was delivered via a CI using a direct audio input cable connected to a computer. In order to elicit a response, broad-band noise is applied and presented at a comfortable level. Results: Minor amplitude reductions (between 0.2 and 0.6 dB SPL) were observed in TEOAEs with CES across different frequencies for each subject. Despite these changes, there was no prominent suppression effect observed, which emphasizes the differences in CS-OAE responses among individuals with postsynaptic ANSD. Conclusions: The absence of significant CS-OAE suppression suggests that direct electrical stimulation through CES may not consistently engage the efferent auditory system in patients with postsynaptic ANSD characteristics. It is essential to broaden the study population to encompass a more diverse range of ANSD presentations in order to confirm the effectiveness of CES in stimulating efferent pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10590889
DOI:10.1044/2025_AJA-24-00199