Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27277796›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2016

Cross-Modal Plasticity in Higher-Order Auditory Cortex of Congenitally Deaf Cats Does Not Limit Auditory Responsiveness to Cochlear Implants.

Rüdiger Land, Peter Baumhoff, Jochen Tillein, Stephen G Lomber, Peter Hubka, Andrej Kral

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 97 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Hearing and Cognition in Childhood.Laryngo- rhino- otologie · 2023
    Article
  14. Crossmodal plasticity in hearing loss.Trends in neurosciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Electrophysiological Examination of Ambient Speech Processing in Children With Cochlear Implants.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The Role of Visual Experience in Individual Differences of Brain Connectivity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Rüdiger LandInstitute of AudioNeuroTechnology and Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany, land.ruediger@mh-hannover.de.
Peter BaumhoffInstitute of AudioNeuroTechnology and Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany.
Jochen TilleinInstitute of AudioNeuroTechnology and Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany, Clinics of Otolaryngology, School of Medicine, J.W. Goethe University 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Stephen G LomberBrain and Mind Institute and Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada, and.
Peter HubkaInstitute of AudioNeuroTechnology and Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany.
Andrej KralInstitute of AudioNeuroTechnology and Department of Experimental Otology, Clinics of Otolaryngology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover 30625, Germany, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75080.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEGoethe University Frankfurt · DEMIND Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledCongenital sensory deprivation can lead to reorganization of the deprived cortical regions by another sensory system. Such cross-modal reorganization may either compete with or complement the "original" inputs to the deprived area after sensory restoration and can thus be either adverse or beneficial for sensory restoration. In congenital deafness, a previous inactivation study documented that supranormal visual behavior was mediated by higher-order auditory fields in congenitally deaf cats (CDCs). However, both the auditory responsiveness of "deaf" higher-order fields and interactions between the reorganized and the original sensory input remain unknown. Here, we studied a higher-order auditory field responsible for the supranormal visual function in CDCs, the auditory dorsal zone (DZ). Hearing cats and visual cortical areas served as a control. Using mapping with microelectrode arrays, we demonstrate spatially scattered visual (cross-modal) responsiveness in the DZ, but show that this did not interfere substantially with robust auditory responsiveness elicited through cochlear implants. Visually responsive and auditory-responsive neurons in the deaf auditory cortex formed two distinct populations that did not show bimodal interactions. Therefore, cross-modal plasticity in the deaf higher-order auditory cortex had limited effects on auditory inputs. The moderate number of scattered cross-modally responsive neurons could be the consequence of exuberant connections formed during development that were not pruned postnatally in deaf cats. Although juvenile brain circuits are modified extensively by experience, the main driving input to the cross-modally (visually) reorganized higher-order auditory cortex remained auditory in congenital deafness. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: In a common view, the "unused" auditory cortex of deaf individuals is reorganized to a compensatory sensory function during development. According to this view, cross-modal plasticity takes over the unused cortex and reassigns it to the remaining senses. Therefore, cross-modal plasticity might conflict with restoration of auditory function with cochlear implants. It is unclear whether the cross-modally reorganized auditory areas lose auditory responsiveness. We show that the presence of cross-modal plasticity in a higher-order auditory area does not reduce auditory responsiveness of that area. Visual reorganization was moderate, spatially scattered and there were no interactions between cross-modally reorganized visual and auditory inputs. These results indicate that cross-modal reorganization is less detrimental for neurosensory restoration than previously thought.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantationAcoustic StimulationAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsAuditory CortexBrain MappingCatsCochlear ImplantsDeafnessDisease Models, AnimalEvoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemFemaleMaleModels, BiologicalNeuronsPhotic Stimulationcochlear implantcross-modal plasticitydeafnessdeaf white catdeprivationdevelopment

Identifiers

PMID27277796
PMCPMC4899523
OpenAlexW2412416716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.