Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(06): 512-519
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17003
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Increasing Cognitive Interference Modulates the Amplitude of the Auditory Brainstem Response

K. Jonas Brännström
*   Lund University, Clinical Sciences Lund, Division of Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund, Sweden
,
Wayne J. Wilson
†   The University of Queensland, School of Health and Rehabilitation Science, Queensland, Australia
,
Sebastian Waechter
*   Lund University, Clinical Sciences Lund, Division of Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund, Sweden
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Despite the presence of efferent neural pathways from the cortex to brainstem, evidence for cognitive inhibition and sensory gating on the auditory brainstem has been mixed. Some previous studies have suggested auditory brainstem responses (ABR) can be affected by cognitive load whereas others have not.

Purpose:

The present study explores if the ABR recorded from adults with normal hearing was affected by increased cognitive load involving cognitive interference.

Research Design:

Within-subject repeated measures.

Study Sample:

Twenty young adults with normal hearing (ten females and ten males, aged 21–26 yr).

Data Collection and Analysis:

ABRs were collected with and without cognitive load (a visual Stroop task). Two measures of cognitive interference, that is, the ability to suppress task-irrelevant input, were derived from the performance on the Stroop task.

Results:

No main effect of cognitive load on ABR wave V amplitudes was found. Participants with higher cognitive interference showed increased response times and larger decreases in ABR wave V amplitudes from the no cognitive load to cognitive load conditions.

Conclusions:

The present study showed that ABR wave V amplitudes did not change with increased overall cognitive load (cognitive load with and without cognitive interference), but ABR amplitude was related to cognitive interference. Increased cognitive load in the form of increased cognitive interference could trigger cognitive inhibition and/or sensory gating to suppress the processing of task-irrelevant information at the level of the brainstem. This suppression could present as reduced ABR wave V amplitudes.

Key Words

ABR - accuracy - amplitude - attention - brainstem - cognition - cognitive load - cognitive performance - cognitive resources - normal hearing - response time - Stroop task
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Althen H, Grimm S, Escera C. 2011; Fast detection of unexpected sound intensity decrements as revealed by human evoked potentials. PLoS One 6 (12) e28522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. 2013; A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 300: 18-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baddeley A. 2003; Working memory and language: an overview. J Commun Disord 36 (03) 189-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baddeley A, Logie R, Nimmo-Smith I. 1985; Components of fluent reading. J Mem Lang 24: 119-131
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bauer LO, Bayles RL. 1990; Precortical filtering and selective attention: an evoked potential analysis. Biol Psychol 30 (01) 21-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brännström KJ, Kastberg T, von Lochow H, Lyberg Åhlander V, Haake M, Sahlén B. 2017; The influence of voice quality on sentence processing and recall performance in school-age children with normal hearing. Speech Lang Hear [epub ahead of print 11 April 2017] DOI: 10.1080/2050571X.2017.1309787.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bush G, Whalen PJ, Shin LM, Rauch SL. 2006; The counting Stroop: a cognitive interference task. Nat Protoc 1 (01) 230-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Connolly JF, Aubry K, McGillivary N, Scott DW. 1989; Human brainstem auditory evoked potentials fail to provide evidence of efferent modulation of auditory input during attentional tasks. Psychophysiology 26 (03) 292-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Daneman M, Carpenter AC. 1980; Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 19: 450-466
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Boer J, Thornton AR. 2007; Effect of subject task on contralateral suppression of click evoked otoacoustic emissions. Hear Res 233 1-2 117-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Diamond A. 2013; Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 64: 135-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Don M, Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Masuda A. 1994; Auditory brainstem response (ABR) peak amplitude variability reflects individual differences in cochlear response times. J Acoust Soc Am 96 (06) 3476-3491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Galbraith GC, Arroyo C. 1993; Selective attention and brainstem frequency-following responses. Biol Psychol 37 (01) 3-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Galbraith GC, Doan BQ. 1995; Brainstem frequency-following and behavioral responses during selective attention to pure tone and missing fundamental stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol 19 (03) 203-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Giard MH, Collet L, Bouchet P, Pernier J. 1994; Auditory selective attention in the human cochlea. Brain Res 633 1-2 353-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gorfein DS, MacLeod CM. 2007. Inhibition in Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
    Google Scholar
  • Guinan Jr JJ. 2006; Olivocochlear efferents: anatomy, physiology, function, and the measurement of efferent effects in humans. Ear Hear 27 (06) 589-607
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hackley SA, Woldorff M, Hillyard SA. 1990; Cross-modal selective attention effects on retinal, myogenic, brainstem, and cerebral evoked potentials. Psychophysiology 27 (02) 195-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hirschhorn TN, Michie PT. 1990; Brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPS) and selective attention revisited. Psychophysiology 27 (05) 495-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hoormann J, Falkenstein M, Hohnsbein J. 1994; Effect of selective attention on the latency of human frequency-following potentials. Neuroreport 5 (13) 1609-1612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hua H, Emilsson M, Ellis R, Widén S, Möller C, Lyxell B. 2014; a Cognitive skills and the effect of noise on perceived effort in employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. Noise Health 16 (69) 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hua H, Emilsson M, Kähäri K, Widén S, Möller C, Lyxell B. 2014; b The impact of different background noises: effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance in employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 859-868
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • International Electrotchnical Commission (IEC) 2008. IEC 60318-4. Ed. 1.0. Electroacoustics - Simulators of human head and ear - Part 4: Occluded-ear Simulator for the Measurement of Earphones Coupled to the Ear by Means of Ear Inserts. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission;
    Google Scholar
  • International Standards Orianization (ISO) 2007. ISO 389-6. Acoustics: Reference zero for the calibration of audiometric equipment. Part 6: Reference Threshold of Hearing for Test Signals of Short Duration. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization;
    Google Scholar
  • Kraus N, White-Schwoch T. 2015; Unraveling the biology of auditory learning: a cognitive-sensorimotor-reward framework. Trends Cogn Sci 19 (11) 642-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk FK, Abbas PJ. 1989; Effects of attention on the auditory evoked potentials recorded from the vertex (ABR) and the promontory (CAP) of human listeners. Neuropsychologia 27 (05) 665-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ljung R, Sörqvist P, Hygge S. 2009; a Effects of road traffic noise and irrelevant speech on children’s reading and mathematical performance. Noise Health 11 (45) 194-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ljung R, Sörqvist P, Kjellberg A, Green A-M. 2009; b Poor listening conditions impair memory for intelligible lectures: Implications for acoustic classroom standards. Build Acoust 16: 257-265
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lukas JH. 1980; Human auditory attention: the olivocochlear bundle may function as a peripheral filter. Psychophysiology 17 (05) 444-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lukas JH. 1981; The role of efferent inhibition in human auditory attention: an examination of the auditory brainstem potentials. Int J Neurosci 12 (02) 137-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Maison S, Micheyl C, Collet L. 1999; The medial olivocochlear efferent system in humans: structure and function. Scand Audiol Suppl 51: 77-84
    Google Scholar
  • Mattys SL, Davis MH, Bradlow AR, Scott SK. 2012; Speech recognition in adverse conditions: a review. Lang Cogn Process 27: 953-978
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Meric C, Collet L. 1992; Visual attention and evoked otoacoustic emissions: a slight but real effect. Int J Psychophysiol 12 (03) 233-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mulders WH, Robertson D. 2000; a Effects on cochlear responses of activation of descending pathways from the inferior colliculus. Hear Res 149 1–2 11-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mulders WH, Robertson D. 2000; b Evidence for direct cortical innervation of medial olivocochlear neurones in rats. Hear Res 144 1–2 65-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE. 1986; Neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and central auditory assessment. Part III: Corpus callosum and efferent pathways. Ear Hear 7 (06) 349-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nabelek AK, Tucker FM, Letowski TR. 1991; Toleration of background noises: relationship with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. J Speech Hear Res 34 (03) 679-685
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pichora-Fuller MK. 2003; Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol 42 (Suppl 2) 2S26-2S32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pichora-Fuller MK, Kramer SE, Eckert MA, Edwards B, Hornsby BW, Humes LE, Lemke U, Lunner T, Matthen M, Mackersie CL, Naylor G, Phillips NA, Richter M, Rudner M, Sommers MS, Tremblay KL, Wingfield A. 2016; Hearing impairment and cognitive energy: the framework for understanding effortful listening (FUEL). Ear Hear 37 (Suppl 1) 5S-27S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rabbitt PM. 1968; Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol 20 (03) 241-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Redick TS, Heitz RP, Engle RW. 2007. Working memory capacity and inhibition: cognitive and social consequences. In: Gorfein DS, MacLeod CM. Inhibition in cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 125-142
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rönnberg J, Lunner T, Zekveld A, Sörqvist P, Danielsson H, Lyxell B, Dahlström O, Signoret C, Stenfelt S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Rudner M. 2013; The Ease of Language Understanding (ELU) model: theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Front Syst Neurosci 7: 31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Schlittmeier SJ, Feil A, Liebl A, Hellbr Ck JR. 2015; The impact of road traffic noise on cognitive performance in attention-based tasks depends on noise level even within moderate-level ranges. Noise Health 17 (76) 148-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sörqvist P. 2010; The role of working memory capacity in auditory distraction: a review. Noise Health 12 (49) 217-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sörqvist P, Stenfelt S, Rönnberg J. 2012; Working memory capacity and visual-verbal cognitive load modulate auditory-sensory gating in the brainstem: toward a unified view of attention. J Cogn Neurosci 24 (11) 2147-2154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stenbäck V, Hällgren M, Larsby B. 2016; Executive functions and working memory capacity in speech communication under adverse conditions. Speech Language and Hearing 19: 218-226
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Stenbäck V, Hällgren M, Lyxell B, Larsby B. 2015; The Swedish Hayling task, and its relation to working memory, verbal ability, and speech-recognition-in-noise. Scand J Psychol 56 (03) 264-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stroop JR. 1935; Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18: 643-662
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Tampas JW, Harkrider AW. 2006; Auditory evoked potentials in females with high and low acceptance of background noise when listening to speech. J Acoust Soc Am 119 (03) 1548-1561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Thompson AM, Thompson GC. 1993; Relationship of descending inferior colliculus projections to olivocochlear neurons. J Comp Neurol 335 (03) 402-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vetter DE, Saldaña E, Mugnaini E. 1993; Input from the inferior colliculus to medial olivocochlear neurons in the rat: a double label study with PHA-L and cholera toxin. Hear Res 70 (02) 173-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • von Lochow H, Lyberg Åhlander V, Sahlén B, Kastberg T, Brännström KJ. 2017; The effect of voice quality and competing speakers in a passage comprehension task: performance in relation to cognitive functioning in children with normal hearing. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol [epub ahead of print 13 March 2017] DOI: 10.1080/14015439.2017.1298835.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Xiao Z, Suga N. 2002; Modulation of cochlear hair cells by the auditory cortex in the mustached bat. Nat Neurosci 5 (01) 57-63
    Google Scholar