Purpose: to compare the latency and amplitude of the Frequency-Following Response and the Auditory Middle Latency Response in typical individuals and those with altered auditory abilities, as well as to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of both assessments in relation to central auditory processing. Methods: 32 individuals of both sexes were distributed into Group 1 (without altered auditory abilities) and Group 2 (with altered auditory abilities). The groups were divided according to behavioral tests of central auditory processing. Individuals in both groups underwent auditory evoked potentials. Student’s t-test was used for analysis, considering a 5% significance. Results: in Group 2, V and A had higher latency and lower amplitude and slope. Group 2 also had lower Na and Pa amplitudes in waves A1C3 and A2C3. The Frequency-Following Response showed 93% sensitivity and specificity, while the Auditory Middle Latency Response showed 87% sensitivity and 93% specificity. Conclusion: the individuals presented with altered hearing abilities showed higher latency and lower response amplitude in the Frequency Following Response and Auditory Middle Latency Response compared to typical individuals. The Frequency- Following Response showed a better balance of sensitivity and specificity.
BackgroundEffective speech production involves a complex system that not only requires planning and motor execution in different speech subsystems, but also depends on the proper functioning of the auditory system. In cases of dysarthria, auditory electrophysiological assessment can be important, since it can help diagnose the underlying neurological disease. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the effectiveness of the frequency-following response (FFR) in monitoring the progress of speech therapy in cases of dysarthria due to neurodegenerative disease. It also sought to gauge changes in the patients’ quality of life using a self-report questionnaire.Case reportTwo individuals with dysarthria were assessed by the FFR and by the questionnaire “Living with Dysarthria” while undergoing a speech therapy rehabilitation program aimed at improving their speech. It was found that the speech therapy brought benefits in terms of quality of life, in line with the FFR responses.ConclusionsThe FFR may be a promising approach to monitoring changes in the central auditory nervous system during speech therapy for dysarthria due to acquired neurodegenerative disease.
RESUMO Objetivo: comparar a latência e a amplitude do Frequency-Following Response e do Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência em indivíduos típicos e com alterações das habilidades auditivas, assim como investigar a sensibilidade e especificidade de ambas as avaliações frente ao processamento auditivo central. Métodos: 32 indivíduos de ambos os sexos foram distribuídos em Grupo 1 (sem alterações de habilidades auditivas) e Grupo 2 (com alteração em habilidades auditivas). Os grupos foram divididos de acordo com testes comportamentais do processamento auditivo central. Os indivíduos de ambos os grupos foram submetidos aos potenciais evocados auditivos. O teste T de Student foi utilizado para a análise, considerando 5% de significância. Resultados: no Grupo 2, V e A apresentaram maior latência e menor amplitude e slope. O Grupo 2 também apresentou menores amplitudes de Na e Pa nas ondas A1C3 e A2C3. O Frequency-Following Response apresentou 93% de sensibilidade e especificidade, enquanto o Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência apresentou 87% de sensibilidade e 93% de especificidade. Conclusão: os indivíduos com alteração das habilidades auditivas apresentaram maior latência e menor amplitude de resposta no Frequency Following Response e Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência em relação aos indivíduos típicos. O Frequency-Following Response apresentou melhor equilíbrio de sensibilidade e especificidade.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.