Speech auditory brainstem response audiometry in children with specific language impairment

Abstract

Objective: Children with specific language impairment (SLI) exhibit significantly delayed language development in the absence of any other abnormality. The aim of this study was to evaluate speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses (c-ABRs) in normal children and those with SLI assuming timing differences between these two populations. Study design: Forty children aged 3–7 years with bilateral normal peripheral hearing, normal developmental milestones and IQ were divided into two groups: a control group (20 children with normal language development) and a study group (20 children with SLI). The study used full history, otological examination, pure tone audiometry, speech audiometry and immittance measures. Click-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR) was recorded first followed by recording of speech-evoked ABR (c-ABR) using CV speech syllable /da/. Results: There were significantly delayed latencies and reduced amplitudes of waves A, C, D, E, F and O components of c-ABR in the study group compared with the controls. Conclusion: Children with specific language impairment had abnormal encoding for speech.

Frequency Following Responses in Adults Who Can or Cannot Sing in Tune

“…Wave C marks the transition zone between consonants and vowels, and showed worse latency values in off-tune individuals compared to in-tune individuals. There are reports of wave C delays in some pathology which might be due to a decrease in neural firings that would cause changes in processing time [34,[37][38][39]. The correct coding of a sound stimulus after a short time is important in precisely discriminating a message.…”

Study of the brainstem auditory evoked potential with speech stimulus in the pediatric population with and without oral language disorders: a systematic review

“…In the included articles, one can observe the values of latency 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 amplitude, 12 , 16 , 17 VA complex slope 10 , 12 , 16 , 17 and area. 10 , 12 Four of the studies 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 did not show any numerical analysis of the results.…”

“…Study quality was assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies; six studies 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 20 , 22 were classified as very good and seven 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 were classified as good.…”

“…The studies indicate an increase in the latency of the BAEP-speech waves in the groups that had language alterations; 12 , 14 , 15 Filippini et al 16 shows a delay only in the E wave, while Basu et al 21 made no observation regarding this aspect in the evaluation with speech stimulus. The articles indicate that there is a reduction in the amplitudes of all waves, 12 , 15 , 21 showing that the increase in the presentation rate implies in a decrease in the amplitude of the responses; 21 one of the studies, 16 however, indicates no alterations in this parameter in the group with SLD. No changes were found regarding the VA complex area.…”