Clinical Efficacy of Electrophysiologic Measures in APD Management Programs

Robert E. Jirsa

doi:10.1055/s-2002-35883

Seminars in Hearing, Table of Contents

Semin Hear 2002; 23(4): 349-356
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-35883

Clinical Efficacy of Electrophysiologic Measures in APD Management Programs

Robert E. Jirsa

Professor of Audiology, Department of Communication Disorders, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Determining the relative efficacy of various intervention programs for auditory processing disorders (APD) is a major goal in the field of rehabilitative audiology. Currently, because of their widespread availability, the most commonly used measuring tools to assess the central auditory system have been behaviorally based. Such measures do have notable disadvantages in that they may be influenced by a number of extraneous variables that may impede, or at least influence, efficacy measures. Electrophysiologic measures offer unique advantages not available from the behavioral measures. A significant amount of research has been completed offering compelling evidence relative to the clinical utility of a number of these electrophysiologic measures, including the maximum length sequences-auditory brainstem response, the middle latency response, the obligatory long latency responses, and the MMN and P3 event-related potentials. This article will review the current research related to electrophyiologic measures and present a rationale for including them in the management program.

KEYWORDS

Electrophysiology - middle latency response - mismatch negativity - P3 event-related potential - speech perception - clinical efficacy

Full Text

References

REFERENCES

1 Jerger J F, Musiek F E. Report of a consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol . 2000; 11 467-474
2 Jirsa R E, Clontz K. Long latency auditory event-related potentials from children with auditory processing disorders. Ear Hear . 1990; 11 222-232
3 Jirsa R E. The clinical utility of the P3 AERP in children with auditory processing disorders. J Speech Hear Res . 1992; 35 903-912
4 Musiek F E, Baran J A, Pinheiro M L. Neuroaudiology Case Studies. San Diego, CA: Singular 1994
5 Jerger J F. Controversial issues in central auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear . 1998; 19 393-397
6 Kraus N, Koch D, McGee T, Nicol T, Cunningham J. Speech-sound discrimination in school-age children: psychophysical and neurophysiologic measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999; 42 1042-1060
7 Musiek F E, Berge B E. How electrophysiologic tests of central auditory processing influence management. In: Bess F, ed. Children with Hearing Impairment Nashville, TN:Vanderbilt-Bill Wilkerson Center Press 1998: 145-161
8 Delgutte B, Kiang N YS. Speech coding in the auditory nerve. I. Vowel-like sounds. J Acoust Soc Am . 1984; 75 866-878
9 Werner L A, Folsom R C, Mancl L R, Syapin C L. Human auditory brainstem response to temporal gaps in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res . 2001; 44 737-750
10 Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T. Discrimination of speech-like contrasts in the auditory thalamus and cortex. J Acoust Soc Am . 1994; 96 2758-2768
11 Dalebout S D, Stack J W. Mismatch negativity to acoustical differences not differentiated behaviorally. J Am Acad Audiol . 1999; 10 388-399
12 Jirsa R E. Maximum length sequences-auditory brainstem responses from children with auditory processing disorders. J Am Acad Audiol . 2001; 12 155-164
13 Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T D. Central auditory system plasticity associated with speech discrimination training. J Cog Neurosci . 1995; 7 25-32
14 Hall III J W. Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon 1992
15 Goldstein R, Aldrich W M. Evoked Potential Audiometry. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon 1999
16 Fifer R, Sierra-Irizarry B. Clinical applications of the auditory middle latency response. Am J Otol . 1988; 9(Suppl 1) 47-56
17 Musiek F E, Lenz S, Gollegly K. Neuroaudiologic correlates to anatomical changes in the brain. Am J Audiol . 1991; 1 19-24
18 Cacace A T, McFarland D J. Middle-latency auditory evoked potentials: basic issues and potential applications. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology, 5th ed Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2002: 349-377
19 Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee T J, Nicol T. Developmental changes in P1 and N1 central auditory responses elicited by consonant-vowel syllables. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1997; 104 540-545
20 Martin B A, Kurtzberg D, Stapells D R. The effects of decreased audibility produced by high-pass noise masking on N1 and the mismatch negativity to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999; 42 271-286
21 Sharma A, Dorman M F. Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical perception of voice-onset time. J Acoust Soc Am . 1999; 106 1078-1083
22 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T, Ponton C, Otis B. Central auditory plasticity: changes in the N1-P2 complex after speech-sound training. Ear Hear . 2001; 22 79-90
23 Sams M, Paavilainen P, Alho K, Naatanen R. Auditory frequency discrimination and event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1985; 62 437-448
24 Kraus N, McGee T, Micco A. Mismatch negativity in school-age children to speech stimuli that are just perceptibly different. J Clin Neurophys . 1993; 88 123-130
25 Sharma A., Kraus N, McGee T, Carrell T, Nicol T. Acoustic versus phonetic representation of speech as reflected by the mismatch negativity event-related potential. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1993; 88 64-71
26 Kraus N, McGee T, Littman T, Nicol T, King C. Nonprimary auditory thalamic representation of acoustic change. J Neurophys . 1994; 72 1270-1277
27 Naatanen R. The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear Hear . 1995; 16 6-18
28 Tremblay K, Kraus N, Carrell T D, McGee T. Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. J Acoust Soc Am . 1997; 102 3762-3773
29 Dalebout S D, Fox L G. Identification of the mismatch negativity in the responses of individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol . 2000; 11 12-22
30 Dalebout S D, Fox L G. Reliability of the mismatch negativity in the responses of individual listeners. J Am Acad Audiol . 2001; 12 245-253
31 Takegata R, Paavilainen P, Naatanen R, Winkler I. Preattentive processing of spectral, temporal, and structural characteristics of acoustic regulatrities: a mismatch negativity study. Psychophysiology . 2001; 38 92-98
32 Walker L J, Carpenter M, Down C R. Possible neuronal refractory or recovery artifacts associated with recording the mismatch negativity response. J Am Acad Audiol . 2001; 12 348-356
33 Polich J. Task difficulty, probability, and interstimulus interval as determinants of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1987; 68 311-320
34 Polich J. P300 clinical utility and control of variability. J Clin Neurophys . 1998; 15 14-33
35 Salamat M, McPherson D. Interactions among variables in the P300 response to a continuous performance task. J Am Acad Audiol . 1999; 10 379-387
36 Kiehl K A, Laurens K R, Duty T L, Forster B B, Liddle P F. Neural sources involved in auditory target detection and novelty processing: an event-related fMRI study. Psychophysiology . 2001; 38 133-142
37 Yordanova J, Kolev V, Polich J. P300 and alpha event-related desynchronization (ERD). Psychophysiology . 2001; 38 143-152
38 Suzki T, Hirabayashi M. Age-related morphological changes in auditory middle-latency response. Audiology . 1987; 26 312-320
39 Musiek F E, Verkst S B, Gollegly K M. Effects of neuro-maturation in auditory-evoked potentials. Semin Hear . 1988; 9 1-13
40 Mason B M, Mellor D H. Brain-stem, middle latency, and late cortical evoked potentials in children with speech and language disorders. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1984; 59 297-309
41 Jerger S, Jerger J. Audiologic applications of early, middle, and late evoked potentials. Hear J . 1985; 38 31-36
42 Jerger J, Oliver T, Chimel R. Auditory middle latency response: a perspective. Semin Hear . 1988; 9 75-86
43 Musiek F E, Charette L, Kelly T, Wee W W, Musiek E. Hit and false-positive rates for the middle latency response in patients with central nervous system involvement. J Am Acad Audiol . 1999; 10 124-132
44 Alho K, Sainio K, Reinikainen K, Naatanen R. Electrical brain response of human new borns to pitch change of an acoustic stimulus. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1990; 77 151-155
45 Squires K C, Hecox K C. Electrophysiological evaluation of higher level auditory processing. Semin Hear . 1983; 4 415-433
46 McPherson D. Late Potentials of the Auditory System. San Diego, CA: Singular 1996
47 Courchesne E. Neurophysiological correlates of cognitive development: changes in long-latency event-related potentials from childhood to adulthood. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1978; 45 468-482
48 Pfefferbaum A, Ford J M, Roth W T, Kopell B S. Age-related changes in auditory event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophys . 1980; 49 266-276
49 Polich J, Howard L, Starr A. Effects of age on the P300 component of the event-related potential from auditory stimuli: peak definition, variation, and measurement. J Gerontol . 1985; 40 721-726
50 Johnson R. A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology . 1986; 30 367-384
51 Ford J M, White P M, Csernansky J G. ERPs in schizophrenia: effects of antipsychotic medication. Biol Psychol . 1994; 36 153-170
52 Satterfield J H, Schell A M, Backs R W, Hidaka K C. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of age effects of electrophysiological measures in hyperactive and normal children. Biol Psychol . 1984; 19 973-990