Beyond cochlear implants: Awakening the deafened brain

Nature Neuroscience

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 686-691

  Moore, David R ^a,b   Shannon, Robert V ^c  

^a MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^b Biomedical Research Unit   (United Kingdom)

^c HOUSE EAR INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY SYSTEM; BRAIN FUNCTION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVOKED AUDITORY RESPONSE; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; NERVE CELL PLASTICITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SPEECH ANALYSIS; WORD RECOGNITION;

ANIMALS; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; BRAIN; ELECTRIC STIMULATION THERAPY; ELECTRODES, IMPLANTED; HEARING LOSS, CENTRAL; HEARING LOSS, SENSORINEURAL; HUMANS; NEURONAL PLASTICITY; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TEACHING;

EID: 66749120655     PISSN: 10976256     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nn.2326     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Spahr, A.J. & Dorman, M.F. Performance of subjects fit with the Advanced Bionics CII and Nucleus 3G cochlear implant devices. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 130, 624-628 (2004).
2. Krueger, B. et al. Performance groups in adult cochlear implant users: speech perception results from 1984 until today. Otol. Neurotol. 29, 509-512 (2008).
3. Tallal, P. et al. Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science 271, 81-84 (1996).
4. Levi, D.M. & Li, R.W. Improving the performance of the amblyopic visual system. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 399-407 (2009).
5. Henderson Sabes, J. & Sweetow, R.W. Variables predicting outcomes on listening and communication enhancement (LACE) training. Int. J. Audiol. 46, 374-383 (2007).
6. Fu, Q.J. & Galvin, J.J., III. Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear. Res. 242, 198-208 (2008).
7. Eisen, M.D. Djourno, Eyries, and the First implanted electrical neural stimulator to restore hearing. Otol. Neurotol. 24, 500-506 (2003).
8. Shannon, R.V. & Otto, S.R. Psychophysical measures from electrical stimulation of the human cochlear nucleus. Hear. Res. 47, 159-168 (1990).
9. Shannon, R.V. et al. Auditory brainstem implant. II. Postsurgical issues and performance. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 108, 634-642 (1993).
10. Otto, S.R., Brackmann, D.E., Hitselberger, W.E., Shannon, R.V. & Kuchta, J. The multichannel auditory brainstem implant update: performance in 61 patients. J. Neurosurg. 96, 1063-1071 (2002).
11. Otto, S.R. et al. Audiological outcomes with the penetrating electrode auditory brainstem implant. Otol. Neurotol. 29, 1147-1154 (2008).
12. Colletti, V. & Shannon, R.V. Open set speech perception with auditory brainstem implant? Laryngoscope 115, 1974-1978 (2005).
13. Colletti, V. et al. The first successful case of hearing produced by electrical stimulation of the human midbrain. Otol. Neurotol. 28, 39-43 (2007).
14. Lenarz, T., Lim, H.H., Reuter, G., Patrick, J.F. & Lenarz, M. The auditory midbrain implant: a new auditory prosthesis for neural deafness-concept and device description. Otol. Neurotol. 27, 838-843 (2006).
15. Tucci, D.L., Born, D.E. & Rubel, E.W. Changes in spontaneous activity and CNS morphology associated with conductive and sensorineural hearing loss in chickens. Ann. Otol. Rhinol. Laryngol. 96, 343-350 (1987).
16. Parks, T.N., Rubel, E.W., Popper, A.N. & Fay, R.R. Plasticity of the Auditory System (Springer, New York, 2004).
17. Tierney, T.S., Russell, F.A. & Moore, D.R. Susceptibility of developing cochlear nucleus neurons to deafferentation-induced death abruptly ends just before the onset of hearing. J. Comp. Neurol. 378, 295-306 (1997).
18. Moore, D.R. Trophic influences of excitatory and inhibitory synapses on neurones in the auditory brainstem. Neuroreport 3, 269-272 (1992).
19. Harris, J.A., Iguchi, F., Seidl, A.H., Lurie, D.I. & Rubel, E.W. Afferent deprivation elicits a transcriptional response associated with neuronal survival after a critical period in the mouse cochlear nucleus. J. Neurosci. 28, 10990-11002 (2008).
20. Mossop, J.E., Wilson, M.J., Caspary, D.M. & Moore, D.R. Down-regulation of inhibition following unilateral deafening. Hear. Res. 147, 183-187 (2000).
21. Eggermont, J.J. Role of auditory cortex in noise- and drug-induced tinnitus. Am. J. Audiol. 17, S162-S169 (2008).
22. Dahmen, J.C. & King, A.J. Learning to hear: plasticity of auditory cortical processing. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 17, 456-464 (2007).
23. de Villers-Sidani, E., Chang, E.F., Bao, S. & Merzenich, M.M. Critical period window for spectral tuning defined in the primary auditory cortex (A1) in the rat. J. Neurosci. 27, 180-189 (2007).
24. Noreña, A.J., Gourévitch, B., Aizawa, N. & Eggermont, J.J. Spectrally enhanced acoustic environment disrupts frequency representation in cat auditory cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 9, 932-939 (2006).
25. Kamke, M.R., Brown, M. & Irvine, D.R.F. Basal forebrain cholinergic input is not essential for lesion-induced plasticity in mature auditory cortex. Neuron 48, 675-686 (2005).
26. Polley, D.B., Steinberg, E.E. & Merzenich, M.M. Perceptual learning directs auditory cortical map reorganization through top-down influences. J. Neurosci. 26, 4970-4982 (2006).
27. Hyson, R.L. & Rubel, E.W. Transneuronal regulation of protein synthesis in the brain stem auditory system of the chick requires synaptic activation. J. Neurosci. 9, 2835-2845 (1989).
28. Leake, P.A., Stakhovskaya, O., Hradek, G.T. & Hetherington, A.M. Factors influencing neurotrophic effects of electrical stimulation in the deafened developing auditory system. Hear. Res. 242, 86-99 (2008).
29. Fallon, J.B., Irvine, D.R. & Shepherd, R.K. Cochlear implant use following neonatal deafness influences the cochleotopic organization of the primary auditory cortex in cats. J. Comp. Neurol. 512, 101-114 (2009).
30. Kral, A., Tillein, J., Heid, S., Klinke, R. & Hartmann, R. Cochlear implants: cortical plasticity in congenital deprivation. Prog. Brain Res. 157, 283-313 (2006).
31. Moore, C.M., Vollmer, M., Leake, P.A., Snyder, R.L. & Rebscher, S.J. The effects of chronic intracochlear electrical stimulation on inferior colliculus spatial representation in adult deafened cats. Hear. Res. 164, 82-96 (2002).
32. Brown, S.D., Hardisty-Hughes, R.E. & Mburu, P. Quiet as a mouse: dissecting the molecular and genetic basis of hearing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 277-290 (2008).
33. Eisenberg, L.S., Shannon, R.V., Martinez, A.S., Wygonski, J. & Boothroyd, A. Speech recognition with reduced spectral cues as a function of age. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 107, 2704-2710 (2000).
34. Kuhl, P.K. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5, 831-843 (2004).
35. Maurer, D., Lewis, T.L. & Mondloch, C.J. Plasticity of the visual system. in The Handbook of Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 2nd edn. (Nelson, C.A. & Luciana, M., eds.) 415-437 (MIT Press, Boston, 2008).
36. Knudsen, E.I. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 1412-1425 (2004).
37. Svirsky, M.A., Robbins, A.M., Kirk, K.I., Pisoni, D.B. & Miyamoto, R.T. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol. Sci. 11, 153-158 (2000).
38. Sharma, A., Gilley, P.M., Dorman, M.F. & Baldwin, R. Deprivation-induced cortical reorganization in children with cochlear implants. Int. J. Audiol. 46, 494-499 (2007).
39. Galvin, J.J., III., Fu, Q.J. & Shannon, R.V. The importance of temporal envelope and fine structure cues for speech and music: lessons from cochlear implants. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. (in the press).
40. Vongpaisal, T., Trehub, S.E. & Schellenberg, E.G. Song recognition by children and adolescents with cochlear implants. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 49, 1091-1103 (2006).
41. Moore, D.R., Ferguson, M.A., Halliday, L.F. & Riley, A. Frequency discrimination in children: perception, learning and attention. Hear. Res. 238, 147-154 (2008).
42. Shannon, R.V., Zeng, F.G., Kamath, V., Wygonski, J. & Ekelid, M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 270, 303-304 (1995).
43. Friesen, L.M., Shannon, R.V., Baskent, D. & Wang, X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 110, 1150-1163 (2001).
44. Davis, M.H., Johnsrude, I.S., Hervais-Adelman, A., Tayler, K. & McGettingan, C. Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134, 222-241 (2005).
45. Stacey, P.C. & Summerfield, A.Q. Comparison of word-, sentence- and phoneme-based training strategies in improving the perception of spectrally distorted speech. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 51, 526-538 (2008).
46. Faulkner, A., Rosen, S. & Norman, C. The right information may matter more than frequency-place alignment: simulations of frequency-aligned and upward shifting cochlear implant processors for a shallow electrode array insertion. Ear Hear. 27, 139-152 (2006).
47. Loebach, J.L., Bent, T. & Pisoni, D.B. Multiple routes to the perceptual learning of speech. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 124, 552-561 (2008).
48. Moore, D.R., Halliday, L.F. & Amitay, S. Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 409-420 (2009).
49. Moore, D.R., Rosenberg, J.F. & Coleman, J.S. Discrimination training of phonemic contrasts enhances phonological processing in mainstream school children. Brain Lang. 94, 72-85 (2005).
50. Wright, B.A. & Zhang, Y. A review of the generalization of auditory learning. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 301-311 (2009).