Auditory Sensory Gating in Children With Cochlear Implants: A P50-N100-P200 Study

Abstract

Background: While a cochlear implant (CI) can restore access to audibility in deaf children, implanted children may still have difficulty in concentrating. Previous studies have revealed a close relationship between sensory gating and attention. However, whether CI children have deficient auditory sensory gating remains unclear. Methods: To address this issue, we measured the event-related potentials (ERPs), including P50, N100, and P200, evoked by paired tone bursts (S1 and S2) in CI children and normal-hearing (NH) controls. Suppressed amplitudes for S2 compared with S1 in these three ERPs reflected sensory gating during early and later phases, respectively. A Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham IV (SNAP-IV) scale was performed to assess the attentional performance. Results: Significant amplitude differences between S1 and S2 in N100 and P200 were observed in both NH and CI children, indicating the presence of sensory gating in the two groups. However, the P50 suppression was only found in NH children and not in CI children. Furthermore, the duration of deafness was significantly positively correlated with the score of inattention in CI children. Conclusion: Auditory sensory gating can develop but is deficient during the early phase in CI children. Long-term auditory deprivation has a negative effect on sensory gating and attentional performance.

Keywords: N100; P200; P50; attentional dysfunction; auditory sensory gating; cochlear implant.

FIGURE 1

Grand average event-related potentials in response to S1 (blue solid line) and S2 (red dashed line) at site Cz. Both (A) children with normal hearing (NH) and (B) those with cochlear implants (CIs) showed robust P50, N100, and P200 components.

FIGURE 2

Auditory sensory gating at the (A) P50, (B) N100, and (C) P200 for children with NH and those with CIs. (Left) The amplitudes of N100 and P200 in response to S2 were significantly smaller than those to S1, indicating the presence of the auditory sensory gating in both NH and CI children. However, P50 suppression only existed in NH and not in CI children. (Middle) CI children showed similar N100 and P200 suppression ratios (S2/S1) but a higher P50 ratio compared with NH children. (Right) The P200 latencies in CI children were significantly shorter than those in NH children. Vertical bars represent the standard error. ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01, and *p < 0.05.

FIGURE 3

The negative effect of long-term auditory deprivation on the attentional performance. (A) There was no significant difference in subscale scores of inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity and oppositional between NH and CI children. (B) The score of inattention was significantly positively correlated with the duration of deafness in CI children. Vertical bars represent the standard error.