J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(06): 451-458
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17047
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Enhancement of the Auditory Late Response (N1-P2) by Presentation of Stimuli From an Unexpected Location

Raquel M. Heacock
*   School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
Amanda Pigeon
*   School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
Gail Chermak
†   Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, WA
Frank Musiek
‡   School of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tuscon, AZ
Jeffrey Weihing
*   School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

03 March 2018

15 March 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)



Passive electrophysiological protocols, such as the middle latency response and speech auditory brainstem response, are often advocated in the objective assessment of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). However, few established electrophysiological protocols exist for CAPD assessment that have patients participate in active tasks which more closely approximate real-world listening. To this end, the present study used a discrimination task (i.e., oddball paradigm) to measure an enhancement of the auditory late response (N1-P2) that occurs when participants direct their auditory attention toward speech arising from an unexpected spatial location.


To establish whether N1-P2 is enhanced when auditory attention is directed toward an unexpected location during a two-word discrimination task. In addition, it was also investigated whether any enhancements in this response were contingent on the stimulus being counted as part of the oddball paradigm.

Research Design:

Prospective study with a repeated measures design.

Study Sample:

Ten normal hearing adults, with an age range of 18–24 years.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The N1 and P2 latencies and peak-to-peak amplitudes were recorded during a P300 paradigm. A series of repeated measures of analysis of variance and a correlation analysis was performed.


There was a significant effect of stimulus location, in which words arising from the unexpected location showed a larger N1-P2 peak-to-peak amplitude and an earlier N1 latency. This effect was seen regardless of whether or not participants had to count the word total in memory.


These findings suggest that spatial enhancement of the N1-P2 is a fairly robust phenomenon in normal hearing adult listeners. Additional studies are needed to determine whether this enhancement is absent or reduced in patients with CAPD.


  • Cameron S, Dillon H, Newall P. 2006; Development and evaluation of the listening in spatialized noise test. Ear Hear 27: 30-42
  • Davis H. 1964; Enhancement of evoked cortical potentials in humans related to a task requiring a decision. Science 14: 182-183
  • Hillyard SA, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW. 1973; Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182: 177-180
  • Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4: 79-83
  • Musiek FE, Geurkink NA, Weider DJ, Donnelly K. 1984; Past, present, and future applications of the auditory middle latency response. Laryngoscope 94: 1545-1553
  • Okita T, Ohtani A. 1977; The effects of active attention switching between the ears on averaged evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 42: 198-204
  • Picton TW, Hillyard SA, Galambos R, Schiff M. 1971; Human auditory attention: a central or peripheral process?. Science 173: 351-353
  • Pigeon A, Miller S, Weihing J. 2016. An Electrophysiological Measure of Attention Switching. Phoenix, AZ: American Academy of Audiology Conference;
  • Roth W, Kopell B, Tinklenberg J, Huntsberger G, Kraemer H. 1975; Reliability of the contingent negative variation and the auditory evoked potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 38: 45-50
  • Shinn-Cunningham BG, Best V. 2008; Selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends Amplif 12: 283-299
  • Skoe E, Kraus N. 2010; Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 31: 302
  • Spong P, Haider M, Lindsley DB. 1965; Selective attentiveness and cortical evoked responses to visual and auditory stimuli. Science 148: 395-397
  • Strait DL, Hornickel J, Kraus N. 2011; Subcortical processing of speech regularities underlies reading and music aptitude in children. Behav Brain Funct 7: 44
  • Strauss DJ, Delb W, Plinkert PK. 2004; Analysis and detection of binaural interaction in auditory evoked brainstem responses by time-scale representations. Comput Biol Med 34: 461-477
  • Walhovd KB, Fjell AM. 2002; One-year test–retest reliability of auditory ERPs in young and old adults. Int J Psychophysiol 46: 29-40
  • Willeford J, Burleigh J, Katz J. 1994; Sentence procedures in central testing. Handb Clin Audiol 4: 256-268