Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 28(01): e115-e121
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1767675
Original Research

The Effect of Simultaneous Contralateral White Noise Masking on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials Elicited by Speech Stimuli

Luiza Dandara de Araújo Felix 
1   Centro Universitário CESMAC, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Pedro Lemos Menezes
2   Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Lisiane Vital de Oliveira 
1   Centro Universitário CESMAC, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Carlos Henrique Alves Batista
3   Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas, Residency in Audiology, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Aline Tenório Lins Carnaúba
2   Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Kelly Cristina Lira de Andrade
2   Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Noise obscures speech signal, causing auditory masking. The effects of this masking can be observed through the cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs). White noise, in turn, has an effect on the auditory cortex, interfering, for example, with lexical decision making.

Objective To analyze the effect of simultaneous masking by contralateral white noise on CAEPs elicited by speech stimuli.

Methods Cross-sectional observational analytical study carried out with 15 participants of both sexes, who were submitted to CAEPs in two conditions: 1) without noise; 2) with white noise at 100 dBSPL intensity, contralaterally and simultaneously. To compare these conditions, the Student t test or the Wilcoxon test were used, depending on the sample normality. Differences with p values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results: When white noise was presented contralaterally and simultaneously to the CAEPs with speech stimulus, an increase in P1, N1 and P2 wave latencies was observed. P1 and P2 amplitudes and N1-P2 peak to peak amplitude also increased, unlike N1 amplitude, which decreased. The differences were significant for P1 and P2 wave latencies and for P2 wave amplitude.

Conclusion The simultaneous masking effect was observed from the morphological alterations of the CAEPs with speech stimulus when white noise was presented in the contralateral ear. There was a significant increase in P1 and P2 wave latencies, as well as in P2 wave amplitude.

Keywords

electrophysiology - auditory evoked potentials - noise


Publication History

Received: 02 June 2022

Accepted: 26 December 2022

Article published online:
05 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Bidelman GM, Yellamsetty A. Noise and pitch interact during the cortical segregation of concurrent speech. Hear Res 2017; 351: 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Papesh MA, Billings CJ, Baltzell LS. Background noise can enhance cortical auditory evoked potentials under certain conditions. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126 (07) 1319-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grose JH, Menezes DC, Porter HL, Griz S. Masking Period Patterns and Forward Masking for Speech-Shaped Noise: Age-Related Effects. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (01) 48-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kawase T, Maki A, Kanno A, Nakasato N, Sato M, Kobayashi T. Contralateral white noise attenuates 40-Hz auditory steady-state fields but not N100m in auditory evoked fields. Neuroimage 2012; 59 (02) 1037-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zwislocki JJ. A theory of central auditory masking and its partial validation. J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 52: 644-659
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kim S, Schwalje AT, Liu AS. et al. Pre- and post-target cortical processes predict speech-in-noise performance. Neuroimage 2021; 228: 117699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Niemczak CE, Vander Werff KR. Informational Masking Effects on Neural Encoding of Stimulus Onset and Acoustic Change. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (01) 156-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Korczak P. Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (03) 285-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eggermont JJ. Correlated neural activity as the driving force for functional changes in auditory cortex. Hear Res 2007; 229 1-2 69-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sharma M, Purdy SC, Munro KJ, Sawaya K, Peter V. Effects of broadband noise on cortical evoked auditory responses at different loudness levels in young adults. Neuroreport 2014; 25 (05) 312-319
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gustafson SJ, Billings CJ, Hornsby BWY, Key AP. Effect of competing noise on cortical auditory evoked potentials elicited by speech sounds in 7- to 25-year-old listeners. Hear Res 2019; 373: 103-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Han JH, Lee J, Lee HJ. Noise-Induced Change of Cortical Temporal Processing in Cochlear Implant Users. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 13 (03) 241-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Yaralı M. Varying effect of noise on sound onset and acoustic change evoked auditory cortical N1 responses evoked by a vowel-vowel stimulus. Int J Psychophysiol 2020; 152: 36-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Duarte DSB, Griz SMS, Mônyka FBR. et al. The effect of noise on the amplitude and morphology of cortical auditory evoked potentials. BJORL 2021; 1166: 1-7
    Google Scholar
  • 15 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 (02) 926-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ganapathy MK, Manjula P. Effect of noise on acoustic change complex. Int J Health Sci Res 2016; 6 (09) 356-370
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Jerger J, Jerger S, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry. I. Normal and sensorineural ears. Arch Otolaryngol 1972; 96 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Okamoto H, Stracke H, Ross B, Kakigi R, Pantev C. Left hemispheric dominance during auditory processing in a noisy environment. BMC Biol 2007; 5: 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Billings CJ, McMillan GP, Penman TM, Gille SM. Predicting perception in noise using cortical auditory evoked potentials. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2013; 14 (06) 891-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Martin BA, Sigal A, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. 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 (03) 1585-1599
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Krishnan A, Plack CJ. Auditory brainstem correlates of basilar membrane nonlinearity in humans. Audiol Neurotol 2009; 14 (02) 88-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wegel RL, Lane CE. The auditory masking of one pure tone by another and its probable relation to the dynamics of the inner ear. Phys Rev 1924; 23 (02) 266-285
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Behne N, Wendt B, Scheich H, Brechmann A. Contralateral white noise selectively changes left human auditory cortex activity in a lexical decision task. J Neurophysiol 2006; 95 (04) 2630-2637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kidd Jr G, Mason CR, Arbogast TL, Brungart DS, Simpson BD. Informational masking caused by contralateral stimulation. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 113 (03) 1594-1603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Silva TR, Dias FAM. Diferenças na habilidade de integração auditiva inter-hemisférica entre os gêneros feminino e masculino: estudo preliminar. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 2012; 17 (03) 260-265
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar