CASE STUDY
MISMATCH NEGATIVITY AND THE N2B COMPONENT ELICITED BY PURE TONES AND SPEECH SOUNDS IN ANOMIC APHASIA: A CASE STUDY
 
More details
Hide details
1
Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Laboratory of Neuropsychophysiology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
2
Department of Audiology, School of Allied Health Technologies, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal
3
Department of Speech Therapy, School of Allied Health Technologies, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal
4
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA
5
Linnaeus Centre Hearing and Deafness, Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
6
Audiology India, Mysore, India
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
David Tome   

David Tome, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Laboratory of Neuropsychophysiology, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, e-mail: dts@estsp.ipp.pt
Publication date: 2020-04-15
 
J Hear Sci 2015;5(2):51–59
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The auditory processing impairments frequently observed in aphasia are being slowly clarified by using eventrelated potentials (ERPs), a method that allows brain processes to be observed at high temporal resolution. Mismatch negativity (MMN) and the N2b amplitude reflect aspects of echoic memory, attention, and phonological representation. This study evaluates the auditory processing of speech and pure tones in an anomic aphasia subject 6 years after a stroke, and investigates whether ERPs can detect possible neurophysiologic sequelae after recovery and rehabilitation.

Material and Methods:
A recovered subject with anomic aphasia, 6 years post-stroke, was compared with 6 healthy controls. Event-related potentials (MMN, N1, N2b) were obtained during two auditory oddball paradigms, one using pure tones and the other consonant–vowel (CV) stimuli.

Results:
When compared to healthy subjects, the anomic aphasia subject had reduced MMN amplitude across the frontocentral electrode sites, particularly for speech stimuli. Average deviant waveform analysis revealed poor morphology of N2b to speech stimuli, which might relate to deficits in phonological representation.

Conclusions:
In the presented case the neurophysiologic brain activity for processing of phonologic representations had not fully recovered 6 years post-stroke. MMN and N2b are highly sensitive ERPs for evaluating impairments in auditory processing and can be registered in the absence of attention and with no task requirements, features which makes it particularly suitable for investigating aphasic subjects.

 
REFERENCES (68)
1.
Damasio AR. Signs of aphasia. In: Taylor M (eds.). Acquired aphasia. New York: Academic Press, 1998; 25–41.
 
2.
Darley FL (ed.). Aphasia. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1982.
 
3.
Goodglass H (ed.). Understanding aphasia. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993.
 
4.
Hallowell B, Chapey R. Introduction to language intervention strategies in adult aphasia. In: Chapey R (ed.). Language intervention strategies in aphaisa and neurogenic communication disorders (5th ed.). New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
 
5.
Goodglass H, Kaplan E (eds.). The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 2nd ed., 1983.
 
6.
Crinion J, Holland A, Copland D, Thompson CK, Hillis AE. Quantifying brain lesions in neuroimaging research examining language recovery after stroke. NeuroImage, 2013; 73: 208–14.
 
7.
Thompson CK, den Ouden D-B. Neuroimaging and recovery of language in aphasia. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep, 2008; 8(6): 475–83.
 
8.
Rapp B, Caplan D, Edwards S, Visch-Brink E, Thompson CK. Neuroimaging in aphasia treatment research: issues of experimental design for relating cognitive to neural changes. Neuroimage, 2013; 73: 200–7.
 
9.
Meinzer M, Harnish S, Condway T, Crosson B. Recent developments in functional and structural imaging of aphasia recovery after stroke. Aphasiology, 2011; 25(3): 271–90.
 
10.
Ilvonen T-M, Kujala T, Kozou H, Kiesiläinen A, Salonen O, Alku P et al. The processing of speech and non-speech sounds in aphasic patients as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN). Neurosci Lett, 2004; 366: 235–40.
 
11.
Tomé D, Marques-Teixeira J, Barbosa F. Temporal lobe epilepsy in childhood: a study model of auditory processing. J Neurol Neurophysiol, 2012; 3(2).
 
12.
Zatorre R, Evans A, Meyer E, Gjedde A. Lateralization of phonetic and pitch discrimination in speech processing. Science, 1992; 256: 846–9.
 
13.
Hough MS, Downs CR, Cranford J, Givens G. Measures of auditory processing in aphasia: behavioural and electrophysiological analysis. Aphasiology, 2003; 17(2): 159–72.
 
14.
Pettigrew CM, Murdoch BE, Kei J, Ponton C, Alku P, Chenery HJ. The mismatch negativity (MMN) response to complex tones and spoken words in individuals with aphasia. Aphasiology, 2005; 19(2): 131–63.
 
15.
Friederici AD, Pfeifer E, Hanhe A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological, and syntactic violations. Cogn Brain Res, 1993; 1: 183–92.
 
16.
Kutas M, Hillyard, SA. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 1980; 207: 203–5.
 
17.
Pettigrew CM, Murdoch BE, Chenery HJ, Kei J. The relationship between the mismatch negativity (MMN) and psycholinguistic models of spoken word processing. Aphasiology, 2004; 18(1): 3–28.
 
18.
Baddeley A. The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trends Cogn Sci, 2000; 4: 417–23.
 
19.
Jääskeläinen IP (ed.). Introduction to cognitive neuroscience. Ventus Publishing ApS, 2012; 92–112.
 
20.
Näätänen R. The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hearing, 1995; 16: 6–18.
 
21.
Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clin Neurophysiol, 2007; 118: 2544–90.
 
22.
Näätänen R. Selective attention and evoked potentials in humans: a critical review. Biol Psychol, 1975; 2: 237–307.
 
23.
Näätänen R. The perception of speech sounds by the human brain as reflected by the mismatch negativity (MMN) and its magnetic equivalent (MMNm). J Psychophysiol, 2001; 38: 1–21.
 
24.
Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, King C, Littman T, Nicol T. Discrimination of speech-like contrasts in the auditory thalamus and cortex. J Acoust Soc Am, 1994; 96: 2758–68.
 
25.
Kraus N, McGee T, Littman T, Nicol T, King C. Non-primary auditory thalamic representation of acoustic change. J Neurophysiol, 1994; 72: 1270–77.
 
26.
Csépe V, Karmos G, Molnár M. Subcortical evoked potential correlates of early information processing: mismatch negativity in cats. In: Basar E, Bullock TH (eds.), Springer series in brain dynamics 2. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1989; 279–89.
 
27.
Astikainen P, Ruusuvirta T, Korhonen T. Longer storage of auditory than visual information in the rabbit brain: evidence from the dorsal hippocampal electrophysiology. Exp Brain Res, 2005; 160(2): 189–93.
 
28.
Ruusuvirta T, Korhonen T, Penttonen M, Arikoski J, Kivirikko K. Hippocampal evoked potentials to pitch deviances in an auditory oddball situation in the cat: Experiment I. Int J Psychophysiol, 1995; 20: 33–9.
 
29.
Hari R, Hämäläinen M, Ilmoniemi R, Kaukoranta E, Reinikainen K, Salminen J et al. Responses of the primary auditory cortex to pitch changes in a sequence of tone pips: neuromagnetic recordings in man. Neurosci Lett, 1984; 50: 127–32.
 
30.
Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Reinikainen K, Sams M. The mismatch negativity to intensity changes in an auditory stimulus sequence. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1987; Suppl 40: 125–31.
 
31.
Näätänen R, Alho K. Mismatch negativity: the measure for central sound representation accuracy. Audiol Neuro-Otol, 1997; 2: 341–53.
 
32.
Winkler I. Interpreting the mismatch negativity. J Psychophysiol, 2007; 21(3–4): 147–63.
 
33.
May P, Tiitinen H. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the devianceelicited auditory deflection, explained. J Psychophysiol, 2010; 47: 66–122.
 
34.
Becker F, Reinvang I. Identification of target tones and speech sounds studied with event-related potentials: Language-related changes in aphasia. Aphasiology, 2012; iFirst: 1–21.
 
35.
Patel SH, Azzam PN. Characterization of N200 and P300: selected studies of the event-related potential. Int J Med Scienc, 2005; 2: 147–54.
 
36.
Pulvermüller F. Hebb’s concept of cell assemblies and the psychophysiology of word processing. Psychophysiol, 1996; 33: 317–33.
 
37.
Pulvermüller F, Kujala T, Shtyrov Y, Simola J, Tiitinen H, Alku P et al. Memory traces for words as revealed by the mismatch negativity. Neuroimage, 2001; 14: 607–16.
 
38.
Pulvermüller F, Schumann JH. Neurobiological mechanisms of language acquisition. Lang Learn, 1994; 44: 681–734.
 
39.
Aaltonen O, Tuomainen J, Laine M, Niemi P. Cortical differences in tonal versus vowel processing as revealed by an ERP component called mismatch negativity. Brain Lang, 1993; 44: 139–52.
 
40.
Auther L, Wertz R, Miller T, Kirshner H. Relationships among the mismatch negativity (MMN) response, auditory comprehension, and site of lesion in aphasic adults. Aphasiology, 2000; 14: 461–70.
 
41.
Becker F, Reinvang I. Mismatch negativity elicited by tones and speech sounds: changed topographical distribution in aphasia. Brain Lang, 2007; 100: 69–78.
 
42.
Ilvonen T-M, Kujala T, Tervaniemi M, Salonen O, Näätänen R, Pekkonen E. The processing of sound duration after left hemisphere stroke: event-related potential and behavioral evidence. Psychophysiol, 2001; 38: 622–8.
 
43.
Ilvonen T-M, Kujala T, Kiesiläinen A, Salonen O, Kozou H, Pekkonen E et al. Auditory discrimination after left hemisphere stroke: an MMN follow-up study. Stroke, 2003; 34: 1746–53.
 
44.
Becker F, Reinvang I. Successful syllable detection in aphasia despite processing impairments as revealed by event-related potentials. Behav Brain Func, 2007; 3: 6.
 
45.
Csépe V, Osman-Sági J, Molnár M, Gósy M. Impaired speech perception in aphasic patients: event-related potential and neurophysiological assessment. Neuropsychologia, 2001; 39: 1194–208.
 
46.
Zheng Y, Zhao F, Liang M, Bardsley B, Yang H, Zhang Z. Toward an understanding of auditory evoked cortical event-related potentials: characteristics and classification. Audiol Med, 2011; 1–10.
 
47.
Damasio AR. Perturbações neurológicas da linguagem e de outras funções simbólicas. Philosophy Doctor dissertation and thesis in Medicine. Lisboa: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, 1973.
 
48.
Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 1971; 9: 97–113.
 
49.
Martin B, Sigal A, Kurtzberg D, Stapells D. The effects of decreased audibility produced by high-pass noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101: 1585–99.
 
50.
Martin B, Kurtzberg D, Stapells D. The effects of decreased audibility produced by high-pass noise masking on N1 and the mismatch negativity to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. J Speech Lang Hear Res., 1999; 42: 271–86.
 
51.
Jung TP, Makeig S, Westerfield M, Townsend J, Courchesne E, Sejnowski TJ. Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clin Neurophysiol, 2000; 111: 1745–58.
 
52.
Pekkonen E, Rinne T, Näätänen R. Variability and replicability of the mismatch negativity. Electroencephalograph Clin Neurophysiol, 1995; 96: 546–54.
 
53.
Duncan C, Barry R, Connolly J, Fischer C, Michie P, Näätänen R et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research: Guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400. Clin Neurophysiol, 2009; 120: 1883–908.
 
54.
Cohen J. A Power Primer. Psychol Bull, 1992; 112(1): 155–9.
 
55.
Kujala T, Kallio J, Tervaniemi M, Näätänen R. The mismatch negativity as an index of temporal processing in audition. Clin Neurophysiol, 2001; 112: 1712–19.
 
56.
Dehaene-Lambertz G. Electrophysiological correlates of categorical phoneme perception in adults. NeuroReport, 1997; 8(4): 919–24.
 
57.
Bird H, Ralph MA, Seidenberg MS, McClelland, JL, Patterson K. Deficits in phonology and past-tense morphology: what’s the connection? J Memory Lang, 2003; 48: 502–26.
 
58.
Tomé D, Barbosa F, Nowak K, Marques-Teixeira, J. The development of the N1 and N2 components in auditory oddball paradigms: a systematic review with narrative analysis and suggested normative values. J Neural Transm, 2015; 122(3): 375–91.
 
59.
Näätänen R, Winkler I. The concept of auditory stimulus representation in cognitive neuroscience. Psychol Bull, 1999; 125: 826–59.
 
60.
Pritchard W, Shappell S, Brandt M. Psychophysiology of N200/ N400: a review and classification scheme. Adv Psychophysiol, 1991; 4: 43–106.
 
61.
Gow JW, Caplan D. An examination of impaired acoustic-phonetic processing in aphasia. Brain Lang, 1996; 52: 386–407.
 
62.
Hurley RS, Paller KA, Rogalski EJ, Mesulam MM. Neural mechanisms of object naming and word comprehension in primary progressive aphasia. J Neurosci, 2012; 32(14): 4848–55.
 
63.
Garagnani M, Wennekers T, Pulvermüller F. A neuroanatomically-grounded Hebbian learning model of attention-language interactions in the human brain. Eur J Neurosci, 2008; 27(2): 492–513.
 
64.
Pulvermüller F. Words in the brain’s language. Behav Brain Sci, 1999; 22: 253–336.
 
65.
Catani M, Jones DK, Fytche DH. Perisylvian language networks of the human brain. Ann Neurol, 2005; 57: 8–16.
 
66.
Wennekers T, Garagnani M, Pulvermüller F. Language models based on Hebbian cell assemblies. J Physiol (Paris), 2006; 100(1–3): 16–30.
 
67.
Catani M, Mesulam M. The arcuate fasciculus and the disconnection theme in language and aphasia: history and current state. Cortex, 2008; 44: 953–61.
 
68.
Näätänen R. Mismatch negativity: clinical research and possible applications. Int J Psychophysiology, 2003; 48: 179–88.