Effects of Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Personal Hearing Aids on Cortical Event-Related Potential and Behavioral Measures of Speech-Sound Processing

Korczak, Peggy; Kurtzberg, Diane; Stapells, David R.

doi:10.1097/00003446-200504000-00005

Cited by 108 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent studies suggest that consonants and vowels have different representations in the central auditory system, both in laboratory animals (16) and in human beings (17) . In this study, results with the use of speech sounds suggest that CAEPs can be used as an objective tool to assess the characteristics of amplification and the validation of hearing-aid fittings, thus enabling the measurement of audibility of speech sound amplification among individuals who cannot collaborate, which is also stated by other authors (3,9,10,(18)(19)(20)(21) , who showed that the use of hearing aids improved the presence of measurable cortical responses (Table 1).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Durante¹,

Wieselberg²,

Carvalho³

et al. 2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To analyze the presence of auditory cortical potential and its correlation with psychoacoustic detection of speech sounds as well as the latency of the P1, N1 e P2 components presented in free field in hearing impaired adults with and without amplification.Methods:We evaluated 22 adults with moderate to severe symmetrical bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, regular users of bilateral hearing aids. Speech sounds of low (/m/), medium (/g/) and high (/t/) frequencies were presented in sound field in decreasing intensities of 75, 65 and of 55 dBSPL in free field with and without hearing aids. The used equipment performs automatic statistical detection of the presence of response; forthermore, the latencies of waves P1, N1 e P2 were labeled and the psychoacoustic perception was registered.Results:The results demonstrated the increased presence of cortical response with hearing aids. We observed the correlation between psychoacoustic perception and automatic detection of 91% for the sounds /g/ and /t/ and ranged from 73 to 86% for the sound /m/. The averages of latencies P1-P2-N1 decreased with both increasing intensity and the use of hearing aids for the three sounds. The differences were significant for the sounds /g/ and /t/ in comparison with and without hearing aids.Conclusion:There was increase in the presence of cortical auditory evoked potential with hearing aids. Automatic detection of cortical response provided with hearing aids showed 91% agreement with the psychoacoustic perception of the speech signal. In the analysis of latency measures of the P1, N1 and P2 components, it was observed a decrease with the increase of the signal intensity and the use of amplification for the three speech stimuli /m/, /g/ and /t/.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Durante¹,

Wieselberg²,

Carvalho³

et al. 2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The P1-N1-P2 response has been reliably evoked and recorded in individuals listening to speech (Friesen & Tremblay, 2006;Tremblay, Friesen, Martin, & Wright, 2003) and nonspeech stimuli (Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993;Walhovd & Fjell, 2002), and has been used to study the neural detection of acoustic change in a number of clinical populations, including older adults (Tremblay, Billings, & Rohila, 2004), children (Ponton, Eggermont, Kholsa, Kwong, & Don, 2002, individuals with hearing loss (Korczak, Kurtzberg, & Stapells, 2005), individuals with auditory neuropathy (Michalewski, Starr, Nguyen, Kong, & Zeng, 2005), and individuals with cochlear implants (Friesen & Tremblay, 2006 importantly, the P1-N1-P2 response corresponds well to the behavioral detection of frequency, intensity, and temporal changes in a stimulus (for review see Hyde, 1997), making it a particularly useful tool for the assessment of perception among patients who are unable to perform behavioral tasks.…”

Section: Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The N1 component is thought to reflect stimulus characteristics such as intensity and timing (Naatanen & Picton, 1987), and may be generated by activity in the superior temporal plane as well as other sources in the temporal and frontal lobes (Knight, Scabini, Woods, & Clayworth, 1988; Papanicolaou, Bau-mann, Rogers, Saydjari, Amparo, & Eisenberg, 1990;Scherg, Vajsar, & Picton, 1989). The P2 component also appears to be affected by stimulus characteristics such as frequency and intensity (Hegerl & Juckel, 1993;Hillyard & Picton, 1987;Novak, Ritter, & Vaughan, 1992), and has sources in the primary and secondary auditory cortices that may or may not be distinct from those of the N1 (Knight, et al, 1988;Zouridakis, Simos, & Papanicolaou, 1998).The P1-N1-P2 response has been reliably evoked and recorded in individuals listening to speech (Friesen & Tremblay, 2006;Tremblay, Friesen, Martin, & Wright, 2003) and nonspeech stimuli (Segalowitz & Barnes, 1993;Walhovd & Fjell, 2002), and has been used to study the neural detection of acoustic change in a number of clinical populations, including older adults (Tremblay, Billings, & Rohila, 2004), children (Ponton, Eggermont, Kholsa, Kwong, & Don, 2002, individuals with hearing loss (Korczak, Kurtzberg, & Stapells, 2005), individuals with auditory neuropathy (Michalewski, Starr, Nguyen, Kong, & Zeng, 2005), and individuals with cochlear implants (Friesen & Tremblay, 2006 importantly, the P1-N1-P2 response corresponds well to the behavioral detection of frequency, intensity, and temporal changes in a stimulus (for review see Hyde, 1997), making it a particularly useful tool for the assessment of perception among patients who are unable to perform behavioral tasks.CAEPs have been used to assess temporal resolution in three studies (Heinrich, Alain, & Schneider, 2004;Michalewski, et al, 2005;Pratt, Bleich, & Mittelman, 2005). Heinrich et al (2004) found that N1 and P2 responses were similar for near-threshold gap durations for both within-and across-channel conditions using very brief pure-tone markers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Evoked Response to Gaps in Noise: Within-Channel and Across-Channel Conditions

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-The objective of this study was to describe the cortical evoked response to silent gaps in a group of young adults with normal hearing using stimulus conditions identical to those used in psychophysical studies of gap detection. Specifically, we sought to examine the P1-N1-P2 auditory evoked response to the onsets of stimuli (markers) defining a silent gap for withinchannel (spectrally identical markers) and across-channel (spectrally different markers) conditions using four perceptually-equated gap durations. It was hypothesized that (1) P1, N1, and P2 would be present and consistent for 1st marker (before the gap) onsets; (2) for within-channel markers, P1, N1, and P2 would be present for 2nd marker (after the gap) onsets only when the gap was of a duration equal to or larger than the behaviorally measured gap detection threshold; and (3) for the across-channel conditions, P1, N1, and P2 would be present for 2nd marker onsets regardless of gap duration. This is expected due to the additional cue of frequency change following the gap.Design-Twelve young adults (mean age 26 years) with normal hearing participated. Withinchannel and across-channel gap detection thresholds were determined using an adaptive psychophysical procedure. Next, cortical auditory evoked potentials (P1-N1-P2) were recorded with a 32-channel Neuro-scan™ electroencephalogram system using within-channel and acrosschannel markers identical to those used for the psychophysical task and four perceptually weighted gap durations: (1) individual listener's gap detection threshold; (2) above gap detection threshold; (3) below gap detection threshold; and (4) a 1-ms gap identical to the gap in the standard interval of the psychophysical task. P1-N1-P2 peak latencies and amplitudes were analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance. A temporal-spatial principal component analysis was also conducted.Results-The latency of P2 and the amplitude of P1, N1, and P2 were significantly affected by the acoustic characteristics of the 2nd marker as well as the duration of the gap. Larger amplitudes and shorter latencies were generally found for the conditions in which the acoustic cues were most salient (e.g., across-channel markers, 1st markers, large gap durations). Interestingly, the temporal-spatial principal component analysis revealed activity elicited by gap durations equal to gap detection threshold in the latency regions of 167 and 183 ms for temporal-parietal and rightfrontal spatial locations.Address for correspondence: Jennifer Lister, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave. PCD 1017, Tampa, FL 33620. jlister@cas.usf.edu.. HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author ManuscriptConclusions-The cortical response to a silent gap is unique to specific marker characteristics and gap durations among young adults with normal hearing. Specifically, when the onset of the 2nd marker is perceptually salient, the amplitude of the P1-N1-P2 re...

show abstract

“…In practice, the use of speech stimuli in LLAEP examination helps to evaluate the auditory processing of acoustic and linguistic information. In addition, it sensitizes the study of the neural bases of speech detection and discrimination (9,10) . LLAEP are recorded and analyzed by a sequence of peaks with positive-negative polarity, i.e., P1, N1, P2, N2 and P3.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potenciais corticais auditivos: uso de diferentes estímulos de fala em populações infantis

Silva

Regaçone

Oliveira

et al. 2017

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Auditory Evoked Potentials are electrical responses that occur in the central auditory pathways, resulting from acoustic stimulation. The use of speech stimuli to elicit the response of these potentials allows to understand information about speech coding and decoding in the central nervous system. Purpose: To compare the Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential of two different speech stimuli. Methods: Thirty healthy school children of both genders, aged between 8 and 12 years, participated in the study. For the auditory evoked potentials, different speech stimuli were used for the auditory discrimination: Test 1 /ba/ x /da/ and Test 2 /pa/ x /da/. The stimuli were randomly presented: 20% infrequent and 80% frequent. The school children participated in an active auditory task and said [da] to identify the infrequent stimuli. The normality of the data was determined using the Shapiro-Wilk test. To compare the mean with Test 1 and Test 2, stimulation was performed using Student t test. Results: There was a significant difference in P3 latency in the right ear, P2 amplitude in the right ear and P3 amplitude in the left ear. Longer values occurred with stimulus /ba/ x /da/. Conclusion: The responses of long latency auditory evoked potentials vary depending on the stimulus and care in the analysis when using speech stimuli in the evaluation.

show abstract

Effects of Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Personal Hearing Aids on Cortical Event-Related Potential and Behavioral Measures of Speech-Sound Processing

Cited by 108 publications

References 29 publications

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Cortical Evoked Response to Gaps in Noise: Within-Channel and Across-Channel Conditions

Potenciais corticais auditivos: uso de diferentes estímulos de fala em populações infantis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About