Download PDF
Semin Hear 2014; 35(01): 051-064
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1363524
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

The Contribution of Speech-Evoked Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials to the Diagnosis and Measurement of Intervention Outcomes in Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Mridula Sharma
1   Audiology Section, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
,
Suzanne C. Purdy
2   Speech Science, The University of Auckland
,
Andrea S. Kelly
2   Speech Science, The University of Auckland
3   Department of Audiology, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 January 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) are included in guidelines for assessment of auditory processing disorder (APD), but their diagnostic value and their use as a measure of treatment effectiveness have not been fully explored. The current study has three main aims: (1) to assess if there are differences in CAEPs recorded in quiet and in noise in children with APD compared to a control group of typically developing (TD) children, (2) to investigate the test-retest reliability of CAEPs, and (3) to determine whether participation in discrimination or language with or without support of personal frequency modulation (FM) resulted in significant changes in auditory function as measured by CAEPs. Fifty-five children with APD and 22 TD children age 7 to 13 years participated. There were group differences between TD children and children with APD for CAEP P1 and N250 amplitudes. CAEPs assessed on two occasions (separated by 7 to 10 days) showed a significant reduction in N250 amplitude on the second visit, highlighting the importance of establishing a stable baseline for CAEPs to more clearly delineate the effects of training from other factors influencing measurements. Participants with APD were randomly assigned to five treatment groups, including a no training group, two groups receiving discrimination training (one of these also used personal FM), and two groups receiving language training (one of these also used personal FM). N250 amplitudes changed during the baseline period, in the absence of any specific training, and hence a control group alone is insufficient for establishing intervention effectiveness; establishing a stable pretraining baseline for electrophysiological (and other) outcome measurements is also important. After 6 weeks training, children with APD in the discrimination treatment group showed a further significant change in N250 amplitudes, beyond the change that occurred during the baseline period. These results are limited by the small numbers of participants in each treatment group; however, the finding of some CAEP changes after training is consistent with published evidence for cortical changes after short-term auditory training.

Keywords

Cortical auditory evoked potentials - noise - auditory processing disorder - test-retest reliability - auditory training - personal frequency modulation - signal-to-noise ratio
 

  • References

  • 1 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) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cone B, Whitaker R. Dynamics of infant cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) for tone and speech tokens. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013; 77 (7) 1162-1173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Abnormalities in central auditory maturation in children with language-based learning problems. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117 (9) 1949-1956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hayes EA, Warrier CM, Nicol TG, Zecker SG, Kraus N. Neural plasticity following auditory training in children with learning problems. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114 (4) 673-684
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Speech-evoked neurophysiologic responses in children with learning problems: development and behavioral correlates of perception. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (6) 554-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (3) 648-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Newall P, Wheldall K, Beaman R. Refractory effects on auditory-evoked responses in children with reading disorders. Neuroreport 2007; 18 (2) 133-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hyde M. The N1 response and its applications. Audiol Neurootol 1997; 2 (5) 281-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cone-Wesson B, Wunderlich J. Auditory evoked potentials from the cortex: audiology applications. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003; 11 (5) 372-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Knight RT, Hillyard SA, Woods DL, Neville HJ. The effects of frontal and temporal-parietal lesions on the auditory evoked potential in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1980; 50 (1–2) 112-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bishop DVM, McArthur GM. Immature cortical responses to auditory stimuli in specific language impairment: evidence from ERPs to rapid tone sequences. Dev Sci 2004; 7 (4) F11-F18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Davies MG. Auditory brainstem response, middle latency response, and late cortical evoked potentials in children with learning disabilities. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (7) 367-382
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Warrier CM, Johnson KL, Hayes EA, Nicol T, Kraus N. Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise. Exp Brain Res 2004; 157 (4) 431-441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow A, Kraus N. Neurobiologic responses to speech in noise in children with learning problems: deficits and strategies for improvement. Clin Neurophysiol 2001; 112 (5) 758-767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Breedin SD, Martin RC, Jerger S. Distinguishing auditory and speech-specific perceptual deficits. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (5) 311-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (9) 467-474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brattico E, Tervaniemi M, Picton TW. Effects of brief discrimination-training on the auditory N1 wave. Neuroreport 2003; 14 (18) 2489-2492
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shahin A, Roberts LE, Pantev C, Trainor LJ, Ross B. Modulation of P2 auditory-evoked responses by the spectral complexity of musical sounds. Neuroreport 2005; 16 (16) 1781-1785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B. Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (2) 79-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Reinke KS, He Y, Wang C, Alain C. Perceptual learning modulates sensory evoked response during vowel segregation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2003; 17 (3) 781-791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Friederichs E, Friederichs P. Clinical and auditory findings after one year application of a personal ear-level FM-device in children with symptoms of an auditory processing disorder: challenge of a possible new perspective. Journal of Educational Audiology 2005; 12: 31-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bishop DV. Research Review: Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2012—neuroscientific studies of intervention for language impairment in children: interpretive and methodological problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013; 54 (3) 247-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (3) 706-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. A randomized control trial of interventions in school-aged children with auditory processing disorders. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (7) 506-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Paavilainen P, Alho K, Reinikainen K, Sams M, Näätänen R. Right hemisphere dominance of different mismatch negativities. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 78 (6) 466-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Whiting KA, Martin BA, Stapells DR. The effects of broadband noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. Ear Hear 1998; 19 (3) 218-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Billings CJ, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kaplan-Neeman R, Kishon-Rabin L, Henkin Y, Muchnik C. Identification of syllables in noise: electrophysiological and behavioral correlates. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120 (2) 926-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Martin BA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. 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 (2) 271-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hillyard SA, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW. Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 1973; 182 (4108) 177-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Picton TW, Hillyard SA. Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974; 36 (2) 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Menning H, Roberts LE, Pantev C. Plastic changes in the auditory cortex induced by intensive frequency discrimination training. Neuroreport 2000; 11 (4) 817-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Shahin A, Roberts LE, Trainor LJ. Enhancement of auditory cortical development by musical experience in children. Neuroreport 2004; 15 (12) 1917-1921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Čeponienė R, Cummings A, Wulfeck B, Ballantyne A, Townsend J. Spectral vs. temporal auditory processing in specific language impairment: a developmental ERP study. Brain Lang 2009; 110 (3) 107-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (6) 532-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Sussman E, Steinschneider M, Gumenyuk V, Grushko J, Lawson K. The maturation of human evoked brain potentials to sounds presented at different stimulus rates. Hear Res 2008; 236 (1–2) 61-79
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Ponton C, Eggermont JJ, Khosla D, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: separating auditory evoked potentials by dipole source modeling. Clin Neurophysiol 2002; 113 (3) 407-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lepistö T, Kujala T, Vanhala R, Alku P, Huotilainen M, Näätänen R. The discrimination of and orienting to speech and non-speech sounds in children with autism. Brain Res 2005; 1066 (1–2) 147-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lovio R, Näätänen R, Kujala T. Abnormal pattern of cortical speech feature discrimination in 6-year-old children at risk for dyslexia. Brain Res 2010; 1335: 53-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Jansson-Verkasalo E, Ceponiene R, Kielinen M , et al. Deficient auditory processing in children with Asperger syndrome, as indexed by event-related potentials. Neurosci Lett 2003; 338 (3) 197-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Siegal M, Blades M. Language and auditory processing in autism. Trends Cogn Sci 2003; 7 (9) 378-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ouimet T, Foster NE, Tryfon A, Hyde KL. Auditory-musical processing in autism spectrum disorders: a review of behavioral and brain imaging studies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2012; 1252 (1) 325-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 O'Connor K. Auditory processing in autism spectrum disorder: a review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012; 36 (2) 836-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hyde KL, Samson F, Evans AC, Mottron L. Neuroanatomical differences in brain areas implicated in perceptual and other core features of autism revealed by cortical thickness analysis and voxel-based morphometry. Hum Brain Mapp 2010; 31 (4) 556-566
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Meyer M, Liem F, Hirsiger S, Jäncke L, Hänggi J. Cortical surface area and cortical thickness demonstrate differential structural asymmetry in auditory-related areas of the human cortex. Cereb Cortex May 3, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Owen JP, Marco EJ, Desai S , et al. Abnormal white matter microstructure in children with sensory processing disorders. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 2: 844-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Liem F, Zaehle T, Burkhard A, Jäncke L, Meyer M. Cortical thickness of supratemporal plane predicts auditory N1 amplitude. Neuroreport 2012; 23 (17) 1026-1030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Schmithorst VJ, Holland SK, Plante E. Diffusion tensor imaging reveals white matter microstructure correlations with auditory processing ability. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (2) 156-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Russo N, Zecker S, Trommer B, Chen J, Kraus N. Effects of background noise on cortical encoding of speech in autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 2009; 39 (8) 1185-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Anderson S, Chandrasekaran B, Yi HG, Kraus N. Cortical-evoked potentials reflect speech-in-noise perception in children. Eur J Neurosci 2010; 32 (8) 1407-1413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Sheehan KA, McArthur GM, Bishop DVM. Is discrimination training necessary to cause changes in the P2 auditory event-related brain potential to speech sounds?. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005; 25 (2) 547-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Tremblay KL, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Ross B. Repeated stimulus exposure alters the way sound is encoded in the human brain. PLoS ONE 2010; 5 (4) e10283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Mutschler I, Wieckhorst B, Speck O , et al. Time scales of auditory habituation in the amygdala and cerebral cortex. Cereb Cortex 2010; 20 (11) 2531-2539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Budd TW, Barry RJ, Gordon E, Rennie C, Michie PT. Decrement of the N1 auditory event-related potential with stimulus repetition: habituation vs. refractoriness. Int J Psychophysiol 1998; 31 (1) 51-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ , et al. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2009; 92 (2) 135-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar