The Effect of Intensity on the Speech Evoked Auditory Late Latency Response in Normal Hearing Individuals

Prakash, Hari; Abraham, Aju; Rajashekar, Bellur; Yerraguntla, Krishna

doi:10.5152/iao.2016.1776

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decreased latency and increased amplitude of P1 and N1 of the natural speech sound stimulation were not found in this study. Although the change of P1 and N1 were reported to be affected by exogenous factors such as duration and type of stimulus and maturation of auditory system by the previous study [21], that phenomenon was not shown in our study. The latency of P2, N2, and N1-P2 complex and amplitude of P2 showed significant differences between the natural and synthetic speech sound stimuli.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Effects of Natural Versus Synthetic Consonant and Vowel Stimuli on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Natural and synthetic speech signals effectively stimulate cortical auditory evoked potential (CAEP). This study aimed to select the speech materials for CAEP and identify CAEP waveforms according to gender of speaker (GS) and gender of listener (GL). Subjects and Methods: Two experiments including a comparison of natural and synthetic stimuli and CAEP measurement were performed of 21 young announcers and 40 young adults.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Effects of Natural Versus Synthetic Consonant and Vowel Stimuli on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The positive SU in NH and at T4 and the significant bivariate correlation between SU N and the P2 latency difference between monaural and bimodal LC at T4 affirm this interpretation. Perceived loudness of a binaurally presented stimulus is louder than its monaural presentation (Hawkins et al, 1987), and there is ample evidence, that N1 and P2 amplitudes increase while their latencies decrease concomitant with the intensity of tones or speech syllables presented in quiet and within background noise (Firszt et al, 2002;Martin et al, 2008;Kim et al, 2012;Sharma et al, 2014;Prakash et al, 2016). Thus, results suggest that with a CI experience of about 6 months, the current sample of bimodal listeners could benefit from SU.…”

Section: Aepmentioning

confidence: 76%

Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cochlear implants (CI) improve hearing for the severely hearing impaired. With an extension of implantation candidacy, today many CI listeners use a hearing aid on their contralateral ear, referred to as bimodal listening. It is uncertain, however, whether the brains of bimodal listeners can combine the electrical and acoustical sound information and how much CI experience is needed to achieve an improved performance with bimodal listening. Patients with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss undergoing implant surgery were tested in their ability to understand speech in quiet and in noise, before and again 3 and 6 months after provision of a CI. Results of these bimodal listeners were compared to age-matched, normal hearing controls (NH). The benefit of adding a contralateral hearing aid was calculated in terms of head shadow, binaural summation, binaural squelch, and spatial release from masking from the results of a sentence recognition test. Beyond that, bimodal benefit was estimated from the difference in amplitudes and latencies of the N1, P2, and N2 potentials of the brains’ auditory evoked response (AEP) toward speech. Data of fifteen participants contributed to the results. CI provision resulted in significant improvement of speech recognition with the CI ear, and in taking advantage of the head shadow effect for understanding speech in noise. Some amount of binaural processing was suggested by a positive binaural summation effect 6 month post-implantation that correlated significantly with symmetry of pure tone thresholds. Moreover, a significant negative correlation existed between binaural summation and latency of the P2 potential. With CI experience, morphology of the N1 and P2 potentials in the AEP response approximated that of NH, whereas, N2 remained different. Significant AEP differences between monaural and binaural processing were shown for NH and for bimodal listeners 6 month post-implantation. Although the grand-averaged difference in N1 amplitude between monaural and binaural listening was similar for NH and the bimodal group, source localization showed group-dependent differences in auditory and speech-relevant cortex, suggesting different processing in the bimodal listeners.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is known that amplitudes of the P1, N1 and P2 (exogenous) components are influenced by the physical characteristics of the stimulus 19 , 20 . We speculate that the lower amplitudes presented by the SG individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss occurred because they perceived the stimulus (75 dBnHL) at a lower intensity (dB NS).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring auditory cortical plasticity in hearing aid users with long latency auditory evoked potentials: a longitudinal study

Leite¹,

Magliaro²,

Raimundo³

et al. 2018

Clinics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to compare long-latency auditory evoked potentials before and after hearing aid fittings in children with sensorineural hearing loss compared with age-matched children with normal hearing.METHODS:Thirty-two subjects of both genders aged 7 to 12 years participated in this study and were divided into two groups as follows: 14 children with normal hearing were assigned to the control group (mean age 9 years and 8 months), and 18 children with mild to moderate symmetrical bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were assigned to the study group (mean age 9 years and 2 months). The children underwent tympanometry, pure tone and speech audiometry and long-latency auditory evoked potential testing with speech and tone burst stimuli. The groups were assessed at three time points.RESULTS:The study group had a lower percentage of positive responses, lower P1-N1 and P2-N2 amplitudes (speech and tone burst), and increased latencies for the P1 and P300 components following the tone burst stimuli. They also showed improvements in long-latency auditory evoked potentials (with regard to both the amplitude and presence of responses) after hearing aid use.CONCLUSIONS:Alterations in the central auditory pathways can be identified using P1-N1 and P2-N2 amplitude components, and the presence of these components increases after a short period of auditory stimulation (hearing aid use). These findings emphasize the importance of using these amplitude components to monitor the neuroplasticity of the central auditory nervous system in hearing aid users.

show abstract

The Effect of Intensity on the Speech Evoked Auditory Late Latency Response in Normal Hearing Individuals

Cited by 13 publications

References 35 publications

Effects of Natural Versus Synthetic Consonant and Vowel Stimuli on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential

Effects of Natural Versus Synthetic Consonant and Vowel Stimuli on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential

Cochlear Implant and Hearing Aid: Objective Measures of Binaural Benefit

Monitoring auditory cortical plasticity in hearing aid users with long latency auditory evoked potentials: a longitudinal study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About