ORIGINAL ARTICLE
AUDITORY BEHAVIOURAL AND ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN ADULTS: EVALUATING CENTRAL AUDITORY PROCESSING
Diana Raumane 1  
,  
Ligija Kise 2
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia
2
Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia
3
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Diana Raumane   

Diana Raumane, Ugales street 7, Riga LV1002, Latvia, Phone: 00371 29112944, e-mail: diana.raumane@apollo.lv
Publication date: 2020-04-17
 
J Hear Sci 2013;3(1):9–17
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
In addition to well known declines in the peripheral auditory system successful perception of speech is dependent on behavioural factors, as well as sound processing at subcortical and cortical levels. We hypothesized that cause and hence localization of impairment in the brain may be diverse in young and elderly people with hearing impairment, accordingly not always related with aging. The aim of the study is to determine the hallmarks of auditory behaviour and auditory cortical evoked responses that could be used in audiology clinics to help explain deficits in speech recognition in young and elderly listeners and recognize the most indicative effects of cortical auditory evoked potentials associated with difficulties of speech intelligibility.

Material and Methods:
Three groups of adults participated: young normal hearing, young and elderly subjects with difficulty to understand speech especially in complex listening environments despite normal pure tone thresholds. We supposed that differences could be found between young and elderly subjects. Procedure involved behavioural hearing tests, dichotic word tests and sentence recognition test in quiet and noise, and electrophysiological measures as cortical auditory evoked potential components P1, N1, P2, P3 in quiet and noise.

Results:
Significant correlation was found between hearing behavioural tests and auditory cortical evoked potentials. This dichotic study demonstrated differences in cortical processing in people with good hearing, young and elderly listeners with speech recognition difficulties. Results provide information about central tests showing significant decrease of perception in young and elderly participants with hearing impairment and it is most strongly associated with event related potential response P3. Sensitivity to signal intensity level significantly changes in the group of young and elderly subjects with hearing impairment for responses P1, N1, P2(p<0.5).

Conclusions:
Despite of resembling results from behaviour tests outcomes of auditory evoked potentials mark less influence of signal intensity level latencies in young then in older subject group. They could be useful in audiology practice for clinical diagnostics and evaluation of hearing rehabilitation.

 
REFERENCES (53)
1.
Wong PCM, Jin JX, Gunasekera GM, Abel R, Lee ER, Dhar S. Aging and Cortical Mechanisms of Speech Perception in Noise. Neurophysiology, 2009; 47(3): 693–703.
 
2.
Peiffer AM, Hugenschmidt CE, Maldjian JA, Casanova R, Srikanth R, Hayasaka et al. Aging and the Interaction of Sensory Cortical Function and Structure. Human Brain Mapping, 2009; 30: 228–40.
 
3.
Divenyi PL, Stark PB, Haupt KM. Decline of speech understanding and auditory thresholds in the eldery. Journal of Acoustic Societies of America, 2005; 118(2): 1089–100.
 
4.
Moore JK. Maturation of human auditory cortex: Implications for speech perception. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl, 2002; 189: 7–10.
 
5.
Martin JS, Jerger JF. Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev, 2005; 42(4 Suppl 2): 25–44.
 
6.
Näätanen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 1987; 24: 375–425.
 
7.
Moore DR. Auditory processing disorder (APD): Definition, diagnosis, neural basis, and intervention. Audiological Medicine, 2006; 4: 4–11.
 
8.
Humes LE. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol, 1996; 7: 161–67.
 
9.
Sanders LD, Poeppel D. Local and Global Auditory Processing: Behavioral and ERP Evidence. Neurophysiology, 2007; 45(6): 1172–86.
 
10.
Polich J, Herbst KL. P300 as a clinical assay: rationale, evaluation, and findings. Int J Psychophysiol, 2000; 38: 3–19.
 
11.
Martin BA, Stapells DR. Effects of low-pass noise masking on auditory event-related potentials to speech. Ear and Hearing, 2005; 26: 195–213.
 
12.
Anderson S, Kraus N. Sensory-Cognitive Interaction in the Neural Encoding of Speech in Noise: A Review. J Am Acad Audiol, 2010; 21: 575–85.
 
13.
Cameron S, Brown D, Keith R, Martin J, Watson C, Dillon H. Development of the North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test (NA LiSN-S): sentence equivalence, normative data, and test-retest reliability studies. J Am Acad Audiol, 2009; 20(2): 128–46.
 
14.
Keith RW, Anderson J. Dichotic listening tests. In: Musiek F E, Chermak G D.,ed. Handbook of (central) auditory processing disorder. Plural Publishing, 2007; Vol 1: 212–14.
 
15.
Musiek FE. Assesment of central auditory dysfunction: The dichotic digit test revisited. Ear and Hearing, 1983; 4: 79–83.
 
16.
Musiek FE, Gollegly KM, Kibbe KS, Verkest-Lenz SB. Proposed screening test for central auditory disorders: Follow up on the dichotic digits test. Am J Otol, 1991; 12: 109–13.
 
17.
Bertoli S, Smurzynski J, Probst R. Effects of Age, Age-Related Hearing Loss, and Contralateral Cafeteria Noise on the Discrimination of Small Frequency Changes: Psychoacoustic and Electrophysiological Measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, 2005; 6: 207–22.
 
18.
Näätanen R, Päävilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: A review. Clin Neurophysiol, 2007; 118: 2544–90.
 
19.
Harris KC, Dubno JR, Keren NI, Ahlstrom JB, Eckert MA. Speech recognition in younger and older adults: a dependency on low-level auditory cortex. J Neurosci, 2009; 29: 6078–87.
 
20.
Billings CJ, Bennett KO, Molis MR, Leek MR. Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear, 2011; 32(1): 53–60.
 
21.
Harris KC, Mills JH, Dubno JR. Electrophysiologic correlates of intensity discrimination in cortical evoked potentials of younger and older adults. Hear Res, 2007; 228(1–2): 58–68.
 
22.
Harris KC, Mills JH, He NJ, Dubno JR. Age related differences in sensitivity to small changes in frequency assessed with cortical evoked potentials. Hear Res, 2008; 243(1–2): 47–56.
 
23.
Friedman D, Cycowicz YM, Gaeta H. The novelty P3: an eventrelated brain potential (ERP) sign of the brain’s evaluation of novelty. Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2001; 25: 355–73.
 
24.
Cacace AT, McFarland DJ. The importance of modality specificity in diagnosing central auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol, 2005; 14: 112–23.
 
25.
Katz J, Tillery KL. Can central auditory processing tests resist supramodal influences? Am J Audiol, 2005; 14: 124–27.
 
26.
Näätanen R, Winkler I. The concept of auditory representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychol Bull, 1999; 125: 826–59.
 
27.
Musiek FE, Bellis TJ, Chermak GD. Nonmodularity of the central auditory nervous system: Implications for (central) auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol, 2005; 14: 128–38.
 
28.
Billings C, Tremblay KL, Stecker GC, Tolin WM. Human evoked cortical activity to signal-to-noise ratio and absolute signal level. Hear Res, 2009; 254(1–2): 15–24.
 
29.
Wilson RH. Clinical Experience with the Words-in-Noise Test on 3430 veterans with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol, 2011; 22: 405–23.
 
30.
Wilson RH, Jaffe MS. Interactions of age, ear, and stimulus complexity on dichotic digit recognition. J Am Acad Audiol, 1996; 7: 358–64.
 
31.
He NJ, Mills JH, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR. Age-related differences in the temporal modulation transfer function with puretone carriers. J Acoust Soc Am, 2008; 124: 3841–49.
 
32.
Hällgren M, Larsby B, Lyxell B, Arlinger S. Cognitive effects in dichotic speech testing in elderly persons. Ear Hear, 2001; 22(2): 120–29.
 
33.
Roup CM, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. Dichotic word recognition in young and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 2006; 17: 230–40.
 
34.
Polich J. Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clin Neurophysiol, 2007; 118: 2128–48.
 
35.
Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Souza PE, Binns MA. Effects of hearing aid amplification and stimulus intensity on cortical auditory evoked potentials. Audiol Neurootol, 2007; 12(4): 234–46.
 
36.
Wronka E, Kaiser J, Anton ML, Coenen AML. The auditory P3 from passive and active three-stimulus oddball paradigm. Acta Neurobiol Exp, 2008; 68: 362–72.
 
37.
Phillips DP. Temporal response features of cat auditory cortex neurons contributing to sensitivity to tones delivered in the presence of continuous noise. Hear Res, 1985; 19(3): 253–68.
 
38.
Phillips DP. Neural representation of sound amplitude in the auditory cortex: Effects of noise masking. Behav Brain Res, 1990; 37(3): 197–214.
 
39.
Phillips DP, Kelly JB. Effects of continuous noise maskerson tone-evoked potentials in cat primary auditory cortex. Cereb Cortex, 1992; 2(2): 134–40.
 
40.
Snell KB, Frisina DR. Relationship among age-related differences in gap-detection and word recognition. J Acous So Am, 2000; 107: 1615–26.
 
41.
Mueller V, Brehmer Y, von Oertzen T, Li S-C, Lindenberger U. Electrophysiological correlates of selective attention: A lifespan comparison. BMC Neuroscience, 2008; 9: 18.
 
42.
Anderson S, Kraus N. Objective Neural Indices of Speech-inNoise Perception. Trends Amplif, 2010; 14: 73–83.
 
43.
Stapells DR. Cortical event-related potentials to auditory stimuli. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 2002; 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Williams.
 
44.
He N, Dubno JR, Mills JH. Frequency and intensity discrimination measured in a maximum-likelihood procedure from young and aged normal-hearing subjects. J Acoust Soc Am, 1998; 103: 553–65.
 
45.
Schroeder MM, Ritter W, Vaughan HG Jr. The mismatch negativity to novel stimuli reflects cognitive decline. Ann NY Acad Sci, 1995; 769: 399–401.
 
46.
Ross B, Fuijoka T, Trembley KL, Picton TW. Aging inbinaural hearing begins in mid-life: Evidence from cortical auditory-evoked responses to changes in interaural phase. J Neurosci, 2007; 27: 11172–78.
 
47.
Ling LL, Hughes LF, Caspary DM. Age-related loss of the GABA synthetic enzyme glutamic acid decarbohylase in rat primary auditory cortex. Neuroscience, 2005; 132: 1103–13.
 
48.
Sussman E, Steinschneider M. Neurophysiological evidence for context-dependent encoding of sensory input in human auditory cortex. Brain Res, 2006; 1075(1): 165–74.
 
49.
Parbery-Clark A, Marmel F, Bair J, Kraus N. What subcorticalcortical relationships tell us about processing speech in noise. Eur J Neurosci, 2011; 33: 549–57.
 
50.
Mills JH, Schmidt RA, Kulish LF. Age-related changes in auditory potentials of Mongolian gerbil. Hear Res, 1990; 46: 201–10.
 
51.
Shaddock Palombi P, Backoff PM, Caspary DM. Responses of young and aged rat inferior colliculus neurons to sinusoidally amplitude modulated stimuli. Hear Res, 2001; 153: 174–80.
 
52.
Milbrandt JC, Albin RL, Caspary DM. Age-related decrease in GABAB receptor binding in the Fischer 344 rat inferior colliculus. Neurobiol Aging, 1994; 15: 699–703.
 
53.
Milbrandt JC, Hunter C, Caspary DM. Alterations of GABAA receptor subunit mRNA levels in the aging Fischer 344 rat inferior colliculus. J Comp Neurol, 1997; 379: 455–65.
 
eISSN:2084-3127
ISSN:2083-389X