Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(01): 061-068
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18069
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Can the Lateralized Readiness Potential Detect Suppressed Manual Responses to Pure Tones?

David Jackson Morris
*   Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, Audiology and Speech Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
,
K. Jonas Brännström
†   Department of Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Clinical Sciences in Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Catherine Sabourin
‡   Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec, Polyclinique de l’Oreille – Audiosanté, Montréal, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 August 2018

Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Willfully not responding to auditory stimuli hampers accurate behavioral measurements. An objective measure of covert manual suppression recorded during response tasks may be useful to assess the veracity of responses to stimuli.

Purpose:

To investigate whether the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), an electrophysiological measure of corticomotor response and suppression, may be of use in determining when participants hear but do not respond to pure tones.

Research Design:

Within-subject repeated measures with a Go–NoGo paradigm.

Study Sample:

Five males and five females (mean age = 38.8 years, standard deviation = 8.8) underwent electrophysiology testing. All had normal hearing, except one.

Intervention:

Participants were tested in a condition where they consistently responded to tonal stimuli, and in a condition where intensity cued whether they should respond or not. Scalp-recorded cortical potentials and behavioral responses were recorded, along with a question that probed the perceived effort required to suppress responses to the stimuli.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Electrophysiology data were processed with independent component analysis and epoch-based artifact rejection. Averaged group and individual LRPs were calculated.

Results:

Group averaged waveforms show that suppressed responses, cued by NoGo stimuli, diverge positively at approximately 300 msec poststimulus, when compared with performed (Go) responses. LRPs were comparable when Go responses were recorded in a separate condition in which participants responded to all stimuli, and when Go and NoGo trials were included in the same condition. The LRP was not observed in one participant.

Conclusions:

Subsequent to further investigation, the LRP may prove suitable in assessing the suppression of responses to audiometric stimuli, and, thereby, useful in cases where functional hearing loss is suspected.

Key Words

electrophysiology - functional hearing loss - lateralized readiness potential
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Aron AR, Poldrack RA. 2006; Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci 26: 2424-2433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA. 2014; Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex: one decade on. Trends Cogn Sci 18: 177-185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Barrs DM, Althoff LK, Krueger WWO, Olsson JE. 1994; Work-related, noise-induced hearing loss: evaluation including evoked potential audiometry. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 110: 177-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boersma P, Weenink D. 2012 Praat: doing phonetics by computer [Computer program].
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Borg GA. 1982; Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 14: 377-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Coles RRA, Mason SM. 1984; The results of cortical electric response audiometry in medico-legal investigations. Br J Audiol 18: 71-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Core team R 2005. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing;
    Google Scholar
  • de Jong R, Wierda M, Mulder G, Mulder LJ. 1988; Use of partial stimulus information in response processing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 14: 682-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Delorme A, Makeig S. 2004; EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods 134: 9-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dobie RA. 2015. Medical-Legal Evaluation of Hearing Loss. 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Eimer M. 1998; The lateralized readiness potential as an on-line measure of central response activation processes. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 30: 146-156
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gelfand SA. 2001. Essentials of Audiology. New York, NY: Thieme;
    Google Scholar
  • Gelfand SA, Silman S. 1985; Functional hearing loss and its relationship to resolved hearing levels. Ear Hear 6: 151-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gelfand SA, Silman S. 1993; Functional components and resolved thresholds in patients with unilateral nonorganic hearing loss. Br J Audiol 27: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hagoort P, Turennout Mv. 1997. The electrophysiology of speaking: possibilities of event-related potential research for speech production. In: Hulstijn W, Peters H, Van Lieshout P. Speech Motor Production and Fluency Disorders: Brain Research in Speech Production. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 351-361
    Google Scholar
  • Hua H, Emilsson M, Ellis R, Widen S, Möller C, Lyxell B. 2014; Cognitive skills and the effect of noise on perceived effort in employees with aided hearing impairment and normal hearing. Noise Health 16: 79-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • ISO 389-8 2004. Acoustics—Reference Zero for the Calibration of Audiometric Equipment—Part 8: Reference Equivalent Threshold Sound Pressure Levels for Pure Tones and Circumaural Earphones. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization;
    Google Scholar
  • Kutas M, Donchin E. 1980; Preparation to respond as manifested by movement-related brain potentials. Brain Res 202: 95-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lightfoot G, Kennedy V. 2006; Cortical electric response audiometry hearing threshold estimation: accuracy, speed, and the effects of stimulus presentation features. Ear Hear 27: 443-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lin J, Staecker H. 2006; Nonorganic hearing loss. Semin Neurol 26: 321-330
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Luck SJ. 2005. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;
    Google Scholar
  • Martin FN. 2014. Nonorganic hearing loss. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L. Handbook of Audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health;
    Google Scholar
  • Peirce JW. 2007; PsychoPy—psychophysics software in Python. J Neurosci Methods 162: 8-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Qiu WW, Stucker FJ, Yin SS, Welsh LW. 1998; Current evaluation of pseudohypacusis: strategies and classification. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 107: 638-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rinkenauer G, Osman A, Ulrich R, Müller-Gethmann H, Mattes S. 2004; On the locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: inferences from the lateralized readiness potential. J Exp Psychol Gen 133: 261-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • van der Lubbe RHJ, Jaśkowski P, Wauschkuhn B. 2001; Influence of time pressure in a simple response task, a choice-by-location task, and the Simon task. J Psychophysiol 15: 241-255
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Van Maanen A, Stapells DR. 2005; Comparison of multiple auditory steady-state responses (80 versus 40 Hz) and slow cortical potentials for threshold estimation in hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol 44: 613-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Warren RM. 1970; Elimination of biases in loudness judgments for tones. J Acoust Soc Am 48: 1397-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar