Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 947

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation

Sharma, Anu, Dorman, Michael F., Spahr, Anthony J.·2002·Ear and Hearing

Abstract

In Brief Objective The aim of the present experiment was to assess the consequences of cochlear implantation at different ages on the development of the human central auditory system. Design Our measure of the maturity of central auditory pathways was the latency of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential. Because P1 latencies vary as a function of chronological age, they can be used to infer the maturational status of auditory pathways in congenitally deafened children who regain hearing after being fit with a cochlear implant. We examined the development of P1 response latencies in 104 congenitally deaf children who had been fit with cochlear implants at ages ranging from 1.3 yr to 17.5 yr and three congenitally deaf adults. The independent variable was the duration of deafness before cochlear implantation. The dependent variable was the latency of the P1 cortical auditory evoked potential. Results A comparison of P1 latencies in implanted children with those of age-matched normal-hearing peers revealed that implanted children with the longest period of auditory deprivation before implantation—7 or more yr—had abnormal cortical response latencies to speech. Implanted children with the shortest period of auditory deprivation—approximately 3.5 yr or less—evidenced age-appropriate latency responses within 6 mo after the onset of electrical stimulation. Conclusions Our data suggest that in the absence of normal stimulation there is a sensitive period of about 3.5 yr during which the human central auditory system remains maximally plastic. Plasticity remains in some, but not all children until approximately age 7. After age 7, plasticity is greatly reduced. These data may be relevant to the issue of when best to place a cochlear implant in a congenitally deaf child. Because P1 latencies of the cortical auditory evoked potential vary as a function of chronological age, they can be used to infer the maturational status of auditory pathways and the human central auditory system. This measure was used to assess the consequences of deafness and of cochlear implantation at different ages on auditory development. The development of P1 response latencies was measured in 104 congenitally deaf people who had been fitted with cochlear implants at ages ranging from 1.3 years to adulthood. A comparison of P1 latencies in implanted children with those of age-matched normal-hearing peers revealed that implanted children with the longest period of auditory deprivation before implantation-7 or more years-had abnormal cortical response latencies to speech. Implanted children with no more than 3.5 years of auditory deprivation evidenced age-appropriate latency responses within 6 months after the onset of electrical stimulation. These data suggest that in the absence of normal stimulation there is a sensitive period of about 3.5 years during which the human central auditory system remains maximally plastic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003446-200212000-00004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Ceponiene, 1998, Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology, 108, 345, 10.1016/S0168-5597(97)00081-6 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cunningham, 2000, Ear Hearing, 21, 554, 10.1097/00003446-200012000-00003 · DOI
  3. Eggermont, 1997, Acta Otolaryngologia, 117, 161, 10.3109/00016489709117760 · DOI
  4. Erwin, 1987, Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement, 40, 461
  5. Finney, 2001, Nature Neuroscience, 4, 1171, 10.1038/nn763 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Hardie, 1999, Hearing Research, 128, 147, 10.1016/S0378-5955(98)00209-3 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Hartmann, 1997, Hearing Research, 112, 115, 10.1016/S0378-5955(97)00114-7 · DOI
  8. Hsu, 2001, Journal of Computational Neurology, 438, 226, 10.1002/cne.1311 · doi:10.1002/cne.1311
  9. Huttenlocher, 1997, Journal of Computational Neurology, 387, 167, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19971020)387:2<167::AID-CNE1>3.0.CO;2-Z · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19971020)387:2<167::aid-cne1>3.0.co;2-z
  10. Klinke, 2001, Audiology Neuro-Otology, 6, 203, 10.1159/000046833 · DOI
  11. Klinke, 1999, Science, 285, 1729, 10.1126/science.285.5434.1729 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Kral, 2000, Cerebral Cortex, 10, 714, 10.1093/cercor/10.7.714 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Kral, 2002, Cerebral Cortex, 12, 797, 10.1093/cercor/12.8.797 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kraus, 1995, Ear Hearing, 16, 19, 10.1097/00003446-199502000-00003 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Leake, 1992, Hearing Research, 64, 99, 10.1016/0378-5955(92)90172-J · DOI
  16. Lee, 2001, Nature, 409, 149, 10.1038/35051653 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Liegeois-Chauvel, 1994, Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology, 92, 204, 10.1016/0168-5597(94)90064-7 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Maurer, 1999, Science, 286, 108, 10.1126/science.286.5437.108 · DOI · Paper page
  19. McFeely, 1998, American Journal of Otology, 19, 467
  20. McGee, 1996, Ear Hearing, 17, 419, 10.1097/00003446-199610000-00008 · DOI
  21. Moore, 1994, Journal of Computational Neurology, 339, 301, 10.1002/cne.903390209 · DOI
  22. Nishimura, 1999, Nature, 397, 116, 10.1038/16376 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Nordeen, 1983, Journal of Computational Neurology, 214, 144, 10.1002/cne.902140204 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Ponton, 1996a, Neuroreport, 8, 61, 10.1097/00001756-199612200-00013 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ponton, 1996b, Ear Hearing, 17, 430, 10.1097/00003446-199617031-00008 · DOI
  26. Ponton, 2001, Audiology Neurotology, 6, 363, 10.1159/000046846 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ponton, 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 220, 10.1016/S1388-2457(99)00236-9 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ponton, 1999, Scandinavian Audiology Supplement, 51, 13
  29. Ryugo, 1997, Journal of Computational Neurology, 385, 230, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19970825)385:2<230::AID-CNE4>3.0.CO;2-2 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19970825)385:2<230::aid-cne4>3.0.co;2-2
  30. Ryugo, 1998, Journal of Computational Neurology, 397, 532, 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19980810)397:4<532::AID-CNE6>3.0.CO;2-2 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1096-9861(19980810)397:4<532::aid-cne6>3.0.co;2-2
  31. Sharma, 2002a, Annals of Otology Rhinology Laryngology, 111, 38, 10.1177/00034894021110S508 · DOI
  32. Sharma, 2002b, Neuroreport, 13, 1365, 10.1097/00001756-200207190-00030 · DOI
  33. Sharma, 1997, Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology, 104, 540, 10.1016/S0168-5597(97)00050-6 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 947

Metadata

Authors
Sharma, A., Dorman, M. F., & Spahr, A. J.
Venue
Ear and Hearing
Published
2002-12
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
532-539
ISSN
0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079617023
Cited by
947
References
0
FWCI
7.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003446-200212000-00004
The paper
Sharma, A., Dorman, M. F., & Spahr, A. J. (2002). A Sensitive Period for the Development of the Central Auditory System in Children with Cochlear Implants: Implications for Age of Implantation. Ear and Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-200212000-00004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.