Auditory sensory gating in Huffaz using an auditory brainstem response with a psychological task: A preliminary investigation

Abstract

Objective This study aims to investigate the auditory sensory gating capacity in Huffaz using an auditory brainstem response (ABR) test with and without psychological tasks. Methods Twenty-three participants were recruited for this study. The participants were comprised of 11 Huffaz who memorized 30 chapters of the Islamic Scripture (from the Quran) and 12 non-Huffaz as the control group. All participants had normal hearing perception and underwent an ABR test with and without psychological tasks. The ABR was elicited at 70 dB nHL using a 3000 Hz tone burst stimulus with a 2-0-2 cycle at a stimulus repetition rate of 40 Hz. The ABR wave V amplitude and latencies were measured and statistically compared. A forward digit span test was also conducted to determine participants’ working memory capacity. Results There were no significant differences in the ABR wave V amplitudes and latencies between Huffaz and non-Huffaz in ABR with and without psychological tasks. There were also no significant differences in the ABR wave V amplitudes and latencies in both groups of ABR with and without psychological tasks. In addition, no significant differences were identified in the digit span working memory score between both groups. Conclusions In this study, based on the ABR findings, Huffaz showed the same auditory sensory gating capacity as the non-Huffaz group. The ABR result was consistent with the digit span working memory test score. This finding implies that both groups have similar working memory performance. However, the conclusion is limited to the specific assessment method that we used in this study.

Auditory Brainstem Response with Cognitive Interference in Normal and Autism Spectrum Disorder Children - Understanding the Auditory Sensory Gating Mechanism

“…The most common AEP to measure auditory sensory gating is the P1 or often called P50 component [21]. Most recently, auditory brainstem response (ABR) has been used as well to measure auditory sensory gating but with the conditions that the ABR needs to be conducted while the subject is performing certain psychological assessments (example; Stroop task) [19,22,23]. Both assessments are discussed in the next section.…”

“…Few studies in the last 10 years have reported the potential to measure auditory sensory gating from the auditory efferent pathways by eliciting auditory brainstem response (ABR) and modulating the ABRs using attentional tasks [19,22,23]. These findings were inconsistent with some of the earlier studies that found no significant influence of the attention to the ABR findings thus dismissing the neural inhibition activities that occur in the efferent pathway between the level of the auditory cortex and the brainstem [26,27].…”

“…To record an ABR with attention modulation, the participant needs to perform certain psychological tasks while the ABR is being acquired. Among psychological tasks that have been used in the ABR acquisition are the working memory task [23], Stroop task [19,22] (see Section 3), and visual and auditory discrimination tasks [26]. Stroop task has been used to measure auditory sensory gating in recent studies [19,22].…”

“…Among psychological tasks that have been used in the ABR acquisition are the working memory task [23], Stroop task [19,22] (see Section 3), and visual and auditory discrimination tasks [26]. Stroop task has been used to measure auditory sensory gating in recent studies [19,22]. In this auditory sensory gating test, the patients are required to count the frequency of congruent and incongruent digits while the ABR is acquired from the patient.…”

“…In addition, Brännström et al [19] also found some of their subjects showed significantly larger inhibition and some did not, which suggests auditory sensory gating abilities are varied between subjects. Dzulkarnain et al [22] studied the influence of cognitive interference on the ABR findings in 23 adult participants that were further categorized as Huffaz and non-Huffaz. Similar to Brännström et al [19] findings, the authors found no significant difference in the ABR wave V amplitude with and without cognitive interference in both within and between groups analysis.…”