Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
SPEECH-EVOKED CORTICAL POTENTIALS IN NORMALHEARING CHILDREN AND ADULTS USING THREE PHONEMES
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
Publication date: 2015-06-30
Corresponding author
Himanshu Kumar Sanju
Himanshu Kumar Sanju, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: himanshusanjuaiish@gmail.com
Himanshu Kumar Sanju, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India, e-mail: himanshusanjuaiish@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2015;5(2):9-15
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The neural representation of different speech stimuli (phonemes) can be measured at the cortex using electrophysiological techniques, a procedure called speech-evoked cortical potentials. Each phoneme produces cortical potentials with different temporal and spectral properties. Latency and amplitude measures reflect changes in the way different phonemes are neurally represented, so these measures are expected to change with maturation of the system, that is with age. The aim of the present study to investigate whether there were differences in latency and amplitude between children and adults in response to the three phonemes /m/, /g/, and /t/.
Material and Methods:
Exactly 10 normal-hearing children of age 5–7 years and 10 normal-hearing adults of age 17–24 years were recruited. Speech-evoked cortical potential were recorded using the HEARLab (v.1.0) auditory evoked potential system. Non-parametric statistics were used to compare both groups.
Results:
Mann-Whitney U-tests shows statistically significant differences between children and adults for both the latency and amplitude of wave P1 and N1 at the 0.05 level. At the same time, there were no significant differences between /m/, /g/, and /t/ for children and adults at the same level when a Kruskal-Wallis test was applied.
Conclusions:
The present study shows there are differences between children and adults in terms of the latency and amplitude of their cortical potential responses, but the particular phoneme used does not appear to make a difference.
The neural representation of different speech stimuli (phonemes) can be measured at the cortex using electrophysiological techniques, a procedure called speech-evoked cortical potentials. Each phoneme produces cortical potentials with different temporal and spectral properties. Latency and amplitude measures reflect changes in the way different phonemes are neurally represented, so these measures are expected to change with maturation of the system, that is with age. The aim of the present study to investigate whether there were differences in latency and amplitude between children and adults in response to the three phonemes /m/, /g/, and /t/.
Material and Methods:
Exactly 10 normal-hearing children of age 5–7 years and 10 normal-hearing adults of age 17–24 years were recruited. Speech-evoked cortical potential were recorded using the HEARLab (v.1.0) auditory evoked potential system. Non-parametric statistics were used to compare both groups.
Results:
Mann-Whitney U-tests shows statistically significant differences between children and adults for both the latency and amplitude of wave P1 and N1 at the 0.05 level. At the same time, there were no significant differences between /m/, /g/, and /t/ for children and adults at the same level when a Kruskal-Wallis test was applied.
Conclusions:
The present study shows there are differences between children and adults in terms of the latency and amplitude of their cortical potential responses, but the particular phoneme used does not appear to make a difference.
REFERENCES (29)
1.
Eggermont JJ. The onset and development of auditory function: contributions of evoked potential studies. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 1989; 13: 5–16.
2.
Oates PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear, 2002; 23: 399–415.
3.
Hone SW, Norman G, Keogh I, Kelly V. The use of cortical evoked response audiometry in the assessment of noise-induced hearing loss. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2003; 128: 257–62.
4.
Wunderlich JL, Cone-Wesson BK, Shepherd R. Maturation of the cortical auditory evoked potential in infants and young children. Hear Res, 2006; 212: 185–202.
5.
Picton TW, Hillyard SA. Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1974; 36: 191–9.
6.
Mendel MI, Hosick EC, Windman TR, Davis H, Hirsh SK, Dinges DF. Audiometric comparison of the middle and late components of the adult auditory evoked potentials awake and asleep. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1975; 38: 27–33.
7.
Golding M, Purdy S, Sharma M, Dillon H. The effect of stimulus duration and inter-stimulus interval on cortical responses in infants. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 2006; 28: 122–36.
8.
Novak GP, Kurtzberg D, Kreuzer JA, Vaughan HG. Cortical responses to speech sounds and their formants in normal infants: maturational sequence and spatiotemporal analysis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1989; 73: 295–305.
9.
Pang EW, Taylor MJ. Tracking the development of the N1 from age 3 to adulthood: an examination of speech and non-speech stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol, 2000; 111: 388–97.
10.
Sharma A, Tobey E, Dorman M, Bharadwaj S, Martin K, Gilley P et al. Central auditory maturation and babbling development in infants with cochlear implants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2004; 130: 511–6.
11.
Chen BM, Buchwald JS. Midlatency auditory evoked responses: differential effects of sleep in the cat. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1986; 65: 373–82.
12.
Näätänen 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.
13.
Kraus N, Smith DI, Reed NL, Stein LK, Cartee C. Auditory middle latency responses in children: effects of age and diagnostic category. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1985; 62(5): 343–51.
14.
Kraus N, Mcgee T, Micco A, Sharma A, Carrell T, Nicol T. Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1993; 88(2): 123–30.
15.
Carter L, Dillon H, Seymour J, Seeto M, Van Dun B. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol, 2013; 24(9): 807–22.
16.
Purdy SC, Sharma M, Munro KJ, Morgan CL. Stimulus level effects on speech-evoked obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials in infants with normal hearing. Clin Neurophysiol, 2013; 124(3): 474–80.
17.
Tremblay KL, Friesen L, Martin BA, Wright R. Test-retest reliability of cortical evoked potentials using naturally produced speech sounds. Ear Hear, 2003; 24(3): 225–32.
18.
Kaushlendra K, Jayashree B, Prakrithi U, Pearl D. Effect of click stimuli and speech bursts on cortical processing. Int J Med Eng Inform, 2011; 3: 122–29.
19.
Sharma A, Glick H, Campbell J, Biever A. Central auditory development in children with hearing loss: clinical relevance of the P1 CAEP biomarker in hearing-impaired children with multiple disabilities. Hearing Balance Commun, 2013; 11: 22–29.
20.
Elangovan S, Stuart A. A cross-linguistic examination of cortical auditory evoked potentials for a categorical voicing contrast. Neurosci Lett, 2011; 490: 140–4.
21.
Easwar V, Glista D, Purcell DW, Scollie SD. The effect of stimulus choice on cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP): consideration of speech segment positioning within naturally produced speech. Int J Audiol, 2012; 51: 926–31.
22.
Shafer VL, Yu YH, Wagner M. Maturation of cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to speech recorded from frontocentral and temporal sites: three months to eight years of age. Int J Psychophysiol, 2015; 95: 77–93.
23.
Almeqbel A. Speech-evoked cortical auditory responses in children with normal hearing. S Afr J Commun Disord, 2013; 60: 38–43.
24.
Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clin Neurophysiol, 2005; 116: 648–57.
25.
Fox AM, Anderson M, Reid C, Smith T, Bishop DV. Maturation of auditory temporal integration and inhibition assessed with event-related potentials (ERPs). BMC Neurosci, 2010; 11: 49.
26.
Cone B, Whitaker R. Dynamics of infant cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) for tone and speech tokens. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2013; 77: 1162–73.
27.
Dun B, Carter L, Dillon H. Sensitivity of cortical auditory evoked potential detection for hearing-impaired infants in response to short speech sounds. Audiol Res, 2012; 13: 65–76.
28.
Munro KJ, Purdy SC, Ahmed S, Begum R, Dillon H. Obligatory cortical auditory evoked potential waveform detection and differentiation using a commercially available clinical system: HEARLab™. Ear Hear, 2011; 32: 782–6.
29.
Garinis AC, Cone-Wesson BK. Effects of stimulus level on cortical auditory event-related potentials evoked by speech. J Am Acad Audiol, 2007; 18: 107–16.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
