Central Auditory System Plasticity Associated with Speech Discrimination Training

Kraus, Nina; McGee, Therese; Carrell, Thomas D.; King, Cynthia; Tremblay, Kelly L.; Nicol, Trent

doi:10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.25

Cited by 263 publications

(214 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

190

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Waveform identification and statistical analysis of the MMN response have been described in detail in previous publications (Kraus et al, 1992(Kraus et al, , 1995(Kraus et al, , 1996(Kraus et al, , 1999McGee et al, 1997) and are thus only briefly described here.…”

Section: Cortexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem Timing: Implications for Cortical Processing and Literacy

Banai¹,

Nicol²,

Zecker³

et al. 2005

J. Neurosci.

169

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The search for a unique biological marker of language-based learning disabilities has so far yielded inconclusive findings. Previous studies have shown a plethora of auditory processing deficits in learning disabilities at both the perceptual and physiological levels. In this study, we investigated the association among brainstem timing, cortical processing of stimulus differences, and literacy skills. To that end, brainstem timing and cortical sensitivity to acoustic change [mismatch negativity (MMN)] were measured in a group of children with learning disabilities and normal-learning children. The learning-disabled (LD) group was further divided into two subgroups with normal and abnormal brainstem timing. MMNs, literacy, and cognitive abilities were compared among the three groups. LD individuals with abnormal brainstem timing were more likely to show reduced processing of acoustic change at the cortical level compared with both normal-learning individuals and LD individuals with normal brainstem timing. This group was also characterized by a more severe form of learning disability manifested by poorer reading, listening comprehension, and general cognitive ability. We conclude that abnormal brainstem timing in learning disabilities is related to higher incidence of reduced cortical sensitivity to acoustic change and to deficient literacy skills. These findings suggest that abnormal brainstem timing may serve as a reliable marker of a subgroup of individuals with learning disabilities. They also suggest that faulty mechanisms of neural timing at the brainstem may be the biological basis of malfunction in this group.

show abstract

Section: Cortexmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem Timing: Implications for Cortical Processing and Literacy

Banai¹,

Nicol²,

Zecker³

et al. 2005

J. Neurosci.

169

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the study by Gomes et al (87), attention appeared to improve the precision of the representation of the frequent stimulus making it easier to detect a stimulus change. Further, experience and learning associated with development might be expected to alter the encoding of the frequent stimulus and lead to better automatic processing (108)(109)(110).…”

Section: Summary Of Selective Allocation Of Attentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of auditory attention in children

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we review the development of four components of auditory attention: arousal, orienting, selective attention and sustained attention. We focus especially on the processes responsible for the selection of specific stimuli for further processing because these are essential for learning and development. Although much work still needs to be done, there is evidence of developmental change in some of the components of attention, especially early in infancy. Later developmental improvements seem to be primarily attributable to higher cognitive processes, such as motivation, strategy development and implementation, and voluntary direction and regulation of attention. INTRODUCTIONAttention is important for most, if not all, information processing. Attentional processes are involved in determining which internal and external stimuli are singled out for further processing and, consequently, which stimuli warrant a response. This process of selecting stimuli from an extremely complex, ever changing, multisensory environment is determined not only by the physical characteristics of the stimuli themselves, but also by the individual interests, motives, and cognitive strategies of the person perceiving the stimuli. Because attention is involved in the process of selection, it plays an important role in the establishment of flexible, adaptive behavior. The distribution of attention is critical for learning and development. Identifying and attending to the important aspects of the environment are essential for the acquisition of new skills. For example, investigators have shown that infants attend to the stress patterns of language and have argued that this facilitates language acquisition (1). The selection of stimuli for further processing also has implications for what information is stored in memory and the level of detail associated with particular memory traces.Central to our conception of attention are the processes responsible for the selection of specific stimuli for further processing. This selection can be automatic, as in the orienting elicited by a novel stimulus, or active, as in the search for a designated target in a set of stimuli during a selective attention task. In addition to selection, individuals must be alert (or exhibit at least some minimal level of arousal) and must be able to sustain an attentional focus for effective information processing and optimal learning. These four components of attention: arousal, orienting, selective attention, and sustained attention, are important to most models of attention (for example, 2-5) and will be used to organize our discussion of the development of attention.Attention has been studied extensively in infants and adults, as evidenced by the number of recent books on the subject (for example, 2, 5-12). However, attention

show abstract

“…To date, studies investigating auditory plastic changes have focused on spectrally differing stimuli, including speech (Nää-tänen et al, 1993;Tremblay et al, 1997Tremblay et al, , 1998Kraus et al, 1995;Menning et al, 2000;Atienza et al, 2002Atienza et al, , 2005Gottselig et al, 2004). Given the mounting evidence in humans for partially segregated brain networks mediating sound recognition and localization functions (Rauschecker, 1998;Hackett et al, 1999;Clarke and Thiran, 2004;De Santis et al, 2007), the present study addressed whether comparable plasticity occurs after learning to discriminate spatial features of otherwise identical acoustic stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Learning-Induced Plasticity in Auditory Spatial Representations Revealed by Electrical Neuroimaging

Spierer¹,

Tardif²,

Sperdin³

et al. 2007

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory spatial representations are likely encoded at a population level within human auditory cortices. We investigated learninginduced plasticity of spatial discrimination in healthy subjects using auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) and electrical neuroimaging analyses. Stimuli were 100 ms white-noise bursts lateralized with varying interaural time differences. In three experiments, plasticity was induced with 40 min of discrimination training. During training, accuracy significantly improved from near-chance levels to ϳ75%. Before and after training, AEPs were recorded to stimuli presented passively with a more medial sound lateralization outnumbering a more lateral one (7:1). In experiment 1, the same lateralizations were used for training and AEP sessions. Significant AEP modulations to the different lateralizations were evident only after training, indicative of a learning-induced mismatch negativity (MMN). More precisely, this MMN at 195-250 ms after stimulus onset followed from differences in the AEP topography to each stimulus position, indicative of changes in the underlying brain network. In experiment 2, mirror-symmetric locations were used for training and AEP sessions; no training-related AEP modulations or MMN were observed. In experiment 3, the discrimination of trained plus equidistant untrained separations was tested psychophysically before and 0, 6, 24, and 48 h after training. Learning-induced plasticity lasted Ͻ6 h, did not generalize to untrained lateralizations, and was not the simple result of strengthening the representation of the trained lateralizations. Thus, learning-induced plasticity of auditory spatial discrimination relies on spatial comparisons, rather than a spatial anchor or a general comparator. Furthermore, cortical auditory representations of space are dynamic and subject to rapid reorganization.

show abstract

Central Auditory System Plasticity Associated with Speech Discrimination Training

Cited by 263 publications

References 22 publications

Brainstem Timing: Implications for Cortical Processing and Literacy

Brainstem Timing: Implications for Cortical Processing and Literacy

The development of auditory attention in children

Learning-Induced Plasticity in Auditory Spatial Representations Revealed by Electrical Neuroimaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About