Materials and Methods: Simple and complex sounds were used (pure tones and the naturally produced Malay consonant-vowels [CVs]) to evoke the cortical auditory-evoked potential (CAEP) signals. Moreover, this study analyzed the influence of related CAEP components that are distinct to the selected population and determined which of the ERP components among (CAEP) components is most affected by the two distinct stimuli. Moreover, the study used classification algorithms to discover the ability of the brain in distinguishing CAEP evoked by stimuli contrasts.
Results: The results showed some resemblance between our results and ERP waveforms outlined in previous studies conducted on native speakers of English. On the other hand, it was also observed that the P1 and N2 had a significant effect in amplitude due to different stimulus.
Conclusion: The results show high classification accuracy for the brain to distinguish auditory stimuli. Moreover, the results indicated some resemblance to previous studies conducted on native English speakers using similar tones and English CV stimuli. However, the amplitudes and latencies of the P1 were found to have a significant difference due to stimuli complexity.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effectiveness of CIMT with CST in ISSNHL.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search, using specific keywords relevant to our study, in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and additional sources of published trials till December 2020. We then screened all search results obtained according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria and performed a quality assessment on all studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and using MedCalc, a meta-analysis was performed on suitable studies.
RESULTS: The recovery rates of three included nonrandomized studies were assessed at 1 to 3 months. A total of 229 (CST: 131, CST + CIMT: 98) patients were pooled for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis using the random-effect model found the relative risk of recovery rate within 3 months to be 1.213 (95% confidence interval 0.709-2.074), a result that is not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Although our analysis results do not demonstrate the noticeable effect of CIMT in ISSNHL, it can support be a gainful adjunct to CST for better hearing results than CST alone. Therefore, it needs further prospective randomized controlled multicenter trials with a large sample.