Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24(04): e399-e406
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1701266
Original Research

Masking Level Difference and Electrophysiological Evaluation in Adults with Normal Hearing

Joyce Miranda Santiago 
1   Department of Speech Language Pathology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Cyntia Barbosa Laureano Luiz
1   Department of Speech Language Pathology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
,
Michele Garcia
2   Department of Speech Language Pathology, universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
,
Daniela Gil
1   Department of Speech Language Pathology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The auditory structures of the brainstem are involved in binaural interaction, which contributes to sound location and auditory figure-background perception.

Objective To investigate the performance of young adults in the masking level difference (MLD) test, brainstem auditory-evoked potentials (BAEPs) with click stimulus, and frequency-following response (FFR), as well as to verify the correlation between the findings, considering the topographic origin of the components of these procedures.

Methods A total of 20 female subjects between 18 and 30 years of age, with normal hearing and no complaints concerning central auditory processing underwent a basic audiological evaluation, as well as the MLD test, BAEP and FFR.

Results The mean result on the MLD test was of 10.70 dB. There was a statistically significant difference in the absolute latencies of waves I, III and V in the BAEPs of the ears. A change in the FFR characterized by the absence of the C, E and F waves was noticed. There was a statistically significant difference in the positive correlation of wave V in the BAEPs with the MLD. There was a statistically significant difference in the positive correlation of the mean MLD and the V, A and F components of the FFR.

Conclusion The mean MLD was adequate. In the BAEPs, we observed that the click stimulus transmission occurred faster in the right ear. The FFR showed absence of some components. The mean MLD correlated positively with the BAEPs and FFR.

Keywords

auditory perception - electrophysiology - brainstem - perceptual masking - adult


Publication History

Received: 26 May 2019

Accepted: 17 November 2019

Article published online:
11 March 2020

© .

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Katz J. Tratado de Audiologia Clínica. 4 ed. São Paulo: Manole; 1999: 349-371
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders. Working Group on Auditory Processing Disorders; 2005: 1-19
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. Behavioral and Electrophysiological Test Procedures. In: Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. Neuroaudiology - Case Studies. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessel TM. Essentials of Neural Science and Behavior. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs/Prentice Hall; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Ferre JM. Processing power: a guide to Central Auditory Processing Disorder assessment and management. San Antonio, TX: Comunication Skill Builders; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Bellis TJ. Assessment and management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders: from science to practice. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bamiou DE. Measures of binaural interaction. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD. editors. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Auditory Neuroscience and Diagnosis. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2007: 1:257-286
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Tobin H. Binaural interaction tasks. In: Pinheiro ML, Musiek FE. editors. Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: Foundations and clinical correlates. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1985: 155-172
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Durlach NI. Equalization and cancellation theory of binaural masking-level differences. J Acoust Soc Am 1963; 35 (08) 1206-1218
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 McFadden D. Masking and the binaural system. In: Tower DB. . editor. The nervous system, human communication and its disorders. New York: Raven Press; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Goldstein DPE, Stephens SDG. Masking level difference: a measure of auditory processing capability. Audiology 1975; 14 (04) 354-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Picton TW, Hillyard SA, Krausz HI, Galambos R. Human auditory evoked potentials. I. Evaluation of components. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974; 36 (02) 179-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Matas CG. [Electrophysiological measures of hearing: Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials]. In: Carvalho RM. Fonoaudiologia: informação para a formação - procedimentos em audiologia. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 2003: 43-57
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Abrams D, Kraus N. Auditory pathway representation of speech sounds in humans. In: Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Katz J, Hood L, Burkard R, Medwetsky L. ; 6th ed.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 611-626
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T. The Frequency-Following Response: A Window into Human Communication. In: Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Scwoch T, Fay RR, Popper AN. editors. The Frequency-Following Response - A Window into Human Communication. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research; 2017. ,62; 1-15
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Coffey EB, Herholz SC, Chepesiuk AM, Baillet S, Zatorre RJ. Cortical contributions to the auditory frequency-following response revealed by MEG. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 11070 . Doi: 10.1038/ncomms11070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Shinn-Cunningham B, Varghese L, Wang L, Bharadwaj H. Individual Differences in Temporal Perception and Their Implications for Everyday Listening. In: Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Scwoch T, Fay RR, Popper AN. editors. The Frequency-Following Response - A Window into Human Communication. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research; 2017. ,62; 159-192
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (09) 2021-2030 . Doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.04.003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kraus N, Banai K. Listening, Literacy and the Neural Transcription of Sound. In DeConde Johnson C, Lewis DE, Mülder HE, Thibodeau LM, editors, Proceedings of the First International Virtual Conference on FM: Achieving Clear Communication, Employing Sound Solutions. Phonak Communictions AG. 2010: 9-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Krishnan A. Human Frequency-Following response. In: Burkard RF, Don M, Eggermont JJ. editors. Auditory evoked potentials: Basic principles and clinical application. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007: 313-335
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 2010; 47 (02) 236-246 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00928.x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wilson RH, Moncrieff DW, Townsend EA, Pillion AL. Development of a 500-Hz masking-level difference protocol for clinic use. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (01) 1-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maroco J. Análise estatística com utilização do SPSS. 2a ed. Lisboa: Lisboa, Sílabo; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Conover WU. Pratical nonparametric statistics. 1st ed. Statistics New York: Jonh Willy & Sons; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Vieira S. Bio Estatística Tópicos Avançados, 2a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Vieira S. Introdução à bioestatística. 3a ed. Rio de Janeiro: Campus; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Barreiro-Branco FCA, Momensohn-Santos TM. [Evaluation and speech therapy in (Central) auditory processing disorders]. Fernandes FDM, Mendes BCA, Navas A, Pereira GP. Tratado de Fonoaudiologia. 2a ed. São Paulo: Roca; 2009: 232-238
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Carvallo RMM. [Auditory Process: basic audiological evaluation]. In: Pereira LD, Schochat E. Processamento auditivo central: manual de avaliação. São Paulo: Lovise; 1997: 27-35
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Esteves MCBN, Dell' Aringa AHB, Arruda GV, Dell' Aringa AR, Nardi JC. Brainstem evoked response audiometry in normal hearing subjects. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2009; 75 (03) 420-425 . Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1808-86942009000300018&lng=en http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942009000300018
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Magliaro FCL, Scheuer CI, Assumpção Júnior FB, Matas CG. Estudo dos potenciais evocados auditivos em autismo. Pró-Fono R. Atual Cient. 2010; 22 (01) 31-36 . Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-56872010000100007&lng=en http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872010000100007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Magliaro FCL, Matas SLA, Matas CG. Potencial Cognitivo P300 em pacientes com lesão isquêmica do hemisfério direito. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient 2009; 21 (04) 285-290 . Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-56872009000400004&lng=en http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872009000400004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. Atypical brainstem representation of onset and formant structure of speech sounds in children with language-based learning problems. Biol Psychol 2004; 67 (03) 299-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Filippini R, Schochat E. Brainstem evoked auditory potentials with speech stimulus in the auditory processing disorder. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.) 2009; 75 (03) 449-455 . Available from: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S180886942009000300022&lng=en http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942009000300022
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Rocha-Muniz CN, Filippini R, Neves-Lobo IF. et al. Can speech-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response become a useful tool in clinical practice?. CoDAS 2016; 28 (01) 77-80 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S231717822016000100077&lng=en cited2019May11 10.1590/2317-1782/20162014231 [Internet]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Banai K, Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Reading and subcortical auditory function. Cereb Cortex 2009; 19 (11) 2699-2707 . Doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp024
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Noffsinger D, Olsen W, Carhart R, Hart C. Auditory and vestibular aberrations in multiple sclerosis. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1972; 303: 1-63
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Jerger J, Hannley M, Rivera V. Auditory Brainstem Response and the Masking Level Difference. Ann N Y Acad. Science 1982; •••: 466-470
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Teixeira CF, Griz SMS. [Central hearing system]. In: Bevilacqua MC. , org. Tratado de Audiologia. 2a ed. São Paulo: Santos; 2011: 17-28
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Fowler CG. Eletrophisiological evidence for the souces of the masking level difference. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60 (08) 2364-2374 . Doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-H-16-0251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Starr A, Hamilton AE. Correlation between confirmed sites of neurological lesions and abnormalities of far-field auditory brainstem responses. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1976; 41 (06) 595-608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Hall JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Song JH, Banai K, Russo NM, Kraus N. On the relationship between speech- and nonspeech-evoked auditory brainstem responses. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (04) 233-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar