Increasing Cognitive Interference Modulates the Amplitude of the Auditory Brainstem Response

Brännström, K. Jonas; Wilson, Wayne J.; Waechter, Sebastian

doi:10.3766/jaaa.17003

Cited by 3 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 3 reported that the ABR Wave V amplitude was significantly lower when patients were performing a psychological task and the amplitude of Wave V was also reduced as a function of the cognitive load in the psychological task. However, the findings in this study are partly consistent with the study by Brännström et al., 8 who investigated the influence of auditory sensory gating towards the ABR Wave V amplitude in twenty normal-hearing subjects based on the Stroop task. Similar to the outcome of this study, the report showed no significant influence by auditory sensory gating on ABR amplitudes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…This result was inconsistent with the study performed by Sörqvist et al., 3 which used ABR tests with accompanying psychological tasks. 8 Sörqvist et al. 3 reported that the ABR Wave V amplitude was significantly lower when patients were performing a psychological task and the amplitude of Wave V was also reduced as a function of the cognitive load in the psychological task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this task, patients are required to count the number of digits that are congruent (such as number 3 presented as ‘333’ ) or incongruent (such as number 3 presented as ‘33333’) while brainstem electrical activities are captured by the surface electrodes. 8 The ABR Wave V amplitude is reduced when the subject is performing a task that is consistent with auditory sensory gating inhibition following a cognitive load.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Auditory sensory gating can be measured using a sensory gating scale questionnaire, 4 a psychological task like a “Stroop task”, 5 , 6 the P50 auditory sensory gating test, 7 and the auditory brainstem response (ABR) conducted with psychological tasks. 3 , 8 Each of these tests have their own advantages; for example, the sensory gating scale questionnaire and the Stroop task measurements depend on a subject's responses either by filling out a validated questionnaire or by performing certain psychological tasks and being rated accordingly. In contrast, the P50 auditory sensory gating test and the ABR are not dependent on direct responses from subjects, but rather by capturing electrical brain activities using electrodes placed on the scalp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Dzulkarnain

Azizi

Sulaiman

2020

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Dzulkarnain

Azizi

Sulaiman

2020

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wang et al have confirmed that migraine patients have white matter lesions and cognitive impairment, among which memory, responsiveness, and information recognition and processing ability are all decreased (7). Jonas et al's study confirmed the correlation between cognitive function changes and BAEP (8). However, there is still no research on the cognitive function of patients with vestibular migraine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Research on the Relationship Between Vestibular Migraine With/Without Cognitive Impairment and Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Vestibular migraine (VM) is the most common cause of spontaneous vertigo with no specific physical and laboratory examinations, and is an under-recognized entity with substantial burden for the individual and the society. In this study, by observing the brainstem auditory evoked potential (BAEP) and cognitive function of VM patients, the possible laboratory diagnostic indicators of VM and the influence of disease on cognitive function were discussed. Method: The study included 78 VM patients, 76 migraine patients, and 79 healthy individuals. The age, gender, and other clinical history of the three groups matched. All participants underwent BAEP examinations, in which patients in the migraine group and outpatients of the VM group were in the interictal period, and inpatients in the VM group were examined during episodes, while all patients tested for the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised (ACE-R) scale were in the interictal period. The differences in BAEP and ACE-R scores between the three groups of members and their relationship with the clinical features of VM patients were analyzed. Result: The peak latency of I, III, and V wave in the BAEP of the VM group was longer than that of the migraine group and the control group (p < 0.05). The peak latency of V wave in the BAEP of the migraine group was longer than that of the control group (p < 0.05). The ACE-R of the VM group scored lower than the migraine group in terms of language fluency and language (p < 0.05), and lower than the control group in terms of total score, language fluency, language, and visuospatial (p < 0.05); and the ACE-R of the migraine group scored lower than the control group in the total score and visuospatial (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Migraine patients have brainstem dysfunction, and VM patients have more severe brainstem dysfunction than migraine patients, suggesting that VM patients have both central nervous system damage and peripheral nerve damage. Migraine patients have cognitive impairment, while cognitive impairment in VM patients is more severe than in migraine patients.

show abstract

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

Dzulkarnain¹,

Sulaiman²,

Shahrudin³

et al. 2022

Auditory System - Function and Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Earlier studies disputed the influence of higher-order function such as attention or cognitive inhibition on the auditory brainstem response (ABR) result. In short, the ABR result was considered similar with or without the subject paying attention. However, in the last few years, there has been growing evidence that the higher-order function may influence the ABR findings provided the sensory gating system of the brain is triggered by any cognitive interference activities. This chapter will explain the concept of auditory sensory gating, a method to measure auditory sensory gating, and at the end of the chapter, preliminary findings concerning the ABR with cognitive interference among ten normally developing children are presented. This chapter will also share a case study that compared auditory sensory gating capacity in normal and children with mild autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

show abstract

Increasing Cognitive Interference Modulates the Amplitude of the Auditory Brainstem Response

Cited by 3 publications

References 51 publications

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

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

Research on the Relationship Between Vestibular Migraine With/Without Cognitive Impairment and Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About