Comparison of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential Findings in Presbycusis with Low and High Word Recognition Score
03. August 2020 (online)
Background Deteriorated speech understanding is a common complaint in elderly people, and behavioral tests are used for routine clinical assessment of this problem. Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) are frequently used for assessing speech detection and discrimination abilities of the elderly, and give promise for differential diagnosis of speech understanding problems.
Purpose The aim of the study was to compare the P1, N1, and P2 CAEP latencies and amplitudes in presbycusis with low and high word recognition score (WRS).
Research Design A cross-sectional study design was used forthe study. Two groups were formed from the patients with presbycusis based on their scores on the speech recognition test.
Study Sample Fifty-seven elderly volunteers participated in the study. The first group composed of 27 participants with high WRS, the other group composed of 30 participants with low WRS.
Data Collection and Analysis The CAEP waves were recorded from these participants using speech signals. Latencies and amplitudes of P1 -N1-P2 waves of the two groups were compared with the f-test statistic.
Results There were significant prolongation of P1 and N1 latencies in presbycusis with low WRS when compared with presbycusis with a relatively high word score (p < 0.05).
Conclusion According to the result of the research, P1 and N1 latencies of presbycusis with low WRS were longer than the participants with high WRS. Factors affecting peripheral auditory system, such as stimulus sensation level, might be responsible for P1 and N1 latency prolongation of the low WRS group.
- 1 Campbell J, Sharma A. Compensatory changes in cortical resource allocation in adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7: 71
- 2 Carter L, Dillon H, Seymour J, Seeto M, Van Dun B. Cortical auditory-evoked potentials (CAEPs) in adults in response to filtered speech stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (09) 807-822
- 3 Chisolm TH, Willott JF, Lister JJ. The aging auditory system: anatomic and physiologic changes and implications for rehabilitation. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (02) 2S3-10
- 4 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc.; 1977
- 5 Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA). Speech understanding and aging. J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 83: 859-893
- 6 Durankaya SM, Serbetcioglu M, Dalkilic G, Giirkan S, Kirkim G. Development of a Turkish monosyllabic word recognition test for adults. Int Adv Otol 2014; 10 (02) 172-180
- 7 Egan JJ. Basic aspects of speech audiometry. Ear Nose Throat J 1979; 58: 190-193
- 8 Golding M, Dillon H, Seymour J, Carter L. The detection of adult cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) using an automated statistic and visual detection. Int J Audiol 2009; 48 (12) 833-842
- 9 Golding M, Pearce W, Seymour J, Cooper A, Ching T, Dillon H. The relationship between obligatory cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and functional measures in young infants. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (02) 117-125
- 10 Gordon Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36: 1276-1285
- 11 Harkrider AW, Plyler PN, Hedrick MS. Effects of hearing loss and spectral shaping on identification and neural response patterns of stop-consonant stimuli in young adults. Ear Hear 2009; 30: 31-42
- 12 Humes LE. Speech understanding in the elderly. J Am Acad Audiol 1996; 7 (03) 161-167
- 13 Humes LE, Christopherson L. Speech identification difficulties of hearing-impaired elderly persons: the contributions of auditory-processing deficits. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 686-693
- 14 Humes LE, Roberts L. Speech recognition difficulties of the hearing-impaired elderly: the contributions of audibility. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 726-735
- 15 Humes LE, Watson BU, Christensen LA, Cokely CG, Halling DC, Lee L. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 1990; 37 (02) 465-474
- 16 Kirkim G, Madanoglu N, Akdas F, Serbetcioglu MB. Comparison of middle latency responses in presbycusis patients with two different speech recognition scores. Auris Nasus Larynx 2007; 34: 453-458
- 17 Korczak PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and personal hearing AIDS on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (02) 165-185
- 18 Luce RD, Krumhansl CL. Measurement, scaling, and psychophysics. In: Atkinson RC, Hernstein RJ, Lindzey G, Luce RD. , ed. Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Perception and Motivation; Learning and Cognition. Vols. 1-2, 2nd ed. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons; 1988: 3-74
- 19 Martin JS, Jerger JF. Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42 (04) (Suppl. 02) 25-44
- 20 Mazekrva J, Popelar J, Syka J. Auditory function in presbycusis: peripheral vs. central changes. Exp Gerontol 2003; 38 (1-2): 87-94
- 21 McArdle R, Hnath-Chisolm T. Speech audiometry. In: Katz J. , ed. Handbook ofClinical Audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 64-79
- 22 McClannahan KS, Backer KC, Tremblay KL. Auditory evoked responses in older adults with normal hearing, untreated, and treated age-related hearing loss. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (05) 1106-1116
- 23 Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 1995; 50 (09) 741-749
- 24 Näätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987; 24 (04) 375-425
- 25 National Acoustics Laboratories. HEARLab System Operator’s Manual 2010. https://hearlab.nal.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/10/HEARLab-Manual.pdf . Accessed August 22, 2019
- 26 Oates PA, Kurtzberg D, Stapells DR. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2002; 23 (05) 399-415
- 27 Ostroff JM, Martin BA, Boothroyd A. Cortical evoked response to acoustic change within a syllable. Ear Hear 1998; 19 (04) 290-297
- 28 Roth TN. Aging of the auditory system. Handb Clin Neurol 2015; 129: 357-373
- 29 Ruscio J, Mullen T. Confidence intervals for the probability of superiority effect size measure and the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Multivariate Behav Res 2012; 47 (02) 201-223
- 30 Schaul N. The fundamental neural mechanisms of electroencephalography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 106 (02) 101-107
- 31 Schlauch RS, Nelson P. Puretone evaluation. In: Katz J. , ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 30-49
- 32 Stapells DR. Cortical event related potentials to auditory stimuli. In: Katz J. , ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009: 395-430
- 33 Tremblay KL, Billings C, Rohila N. Speech evoked cortical potentials: effects of age and stimulus presentation rate. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (03) 226-237
- 34 Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Ostroff on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol 2003; 114 (07) 1332-1343
- 35 Tremblay KL, Ross B. Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the brain. J Commun Disord 2007; 40 (04) 305-312