Effect of Hearing Impairment on Event-Related Potentials for Tone and Speech Distinctions

Wall, Lida G.; Dalebout, Susan D.; Davidson, Stephanie A.; Fox, Robert

doi:10.1159/000266137

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Speech sounds /v/-/͐/ were used to evoke all of these ERPs. In contrast, Wall et al (1991) studied responses to /b⑀/-/d⑀/ and /b⑀/-/p⑀/ contrasts in five subjects with sensorineural hearing loss and found that only N1 amplitudes were significantly different between subjects with mild to moderate hearing loss compared with a normal-hearing control group. Although this finding was not expanded on in the article, examination of the data indicates that N1 amplitudes are smaller for the group with hearing loss, particularly for responses evoked by the voicing contrast.…”

Section: Latency) Shown Are Data Normalized In Terms Of Response Strmentioning

confidence: 94%

Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech-evoked auditory event-related potentials (ERPs) provide insight into the neural mechanisms underlying speech processing. For this reason, ERPs are of great value to hearing scientists and audiologists. This article will provide an overview of ERPs frequently used to examine the processing of speech and other sound stimuli. These ERPs include the P1-N1-P2 complex, acoustic change complex, mismatch negativity, and P3 responses. In addition, we focus on the application of these speech-evoked potentials for the assessment of (1) the effects of hearing loss on the neural encoding of speech allowing for behavioral detection and discrimination; (2) improvements in the neural processing of speech with amplification (hearing aids, cochlear implants); and (3) the impact of auditory training on the neural processing of speech. Studies in these three areas are reviewed and implications for audiologists are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Latency) Shown Are Data Normalized In Terms Of Response Strmentioning

confidence: 94%

Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Oates et al [7] investigated the N1, N2, MMN, and P3, presented at 65 and 80 dB SPL, and found a latency prolongation and an amplitude reduction of these components in adults with hearing loss compared to those of the control group at both levels of presentation. However, an earlier study did not reveal any significant differences in the latencies of N1, P2, and P3 components between adults with hearing loss and their normal-hearing controls [11]. Several factors could account for these differential findings, such as participants' age, age at onset of hearing loss, type and/or degree of hearing loss, level of stimulus presentation, and type of stimuli used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Auditory neurophysiological functions have been measured in adults and children with hearing loss [7–11]. Sensory hearing loss in adults induced a delay in the latency of N1, N2, and a reduction in N2-P2 amplitude [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Children with a Hearing Loss: A Pilot Study

Koravand

Jutras

Lassonde

2012

International Journal of Pediatrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. This study examined the patterns of neural activity in the central auditory system in children with hearing loss. Methods. Cortical potentials and mismatch responses (MMRs) were recorded from ten children aged between 9 and 10 years: five with hearing loss and five with normal hearing in passive oddball paradigms using verbal and nonverbal stimuli. Results. Results indicate a trend toward larger P1 amplitude, a significant reduction in amplitude, and latency of N2 in children with hearing loss compared to control. No significant group differences were observed for the majority of the MMRs conditions. Conclusions. Data suggest that the reduced auditory input affects the pattern of cortical-auditory-evoked potentials in children with a mild to moderately severe hearing loss. Results suggest maturational delays and/or deficits in central auditory processing in children with hearing loss, as indicated by the neurophysiological markers P1 and N2. In contrast, negative MMR data suggest that the amplification provided by the hearing aids could have allowed children with hearing loss to develop adequate discriminative abilities.

show abstract

“…Similar results have been reported by earlier investigators. 12,13 No significant difference was obtained between aided responses of individuals with hearing impairment and those of individuals with normal hearing indicates that the audibility has improved with hearing aid. However, the latencies in the aided condition were longer than those obtained for persons with normal hearing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Persons Using Hearing Aids

Vanaja¹,

Nimisha²

2016

Otolaryngol Open J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: A review of literature on usefulness of Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials (CAEPS) in verifying the usefulness of hearing aid shows equivocal results and a majority of the studies are carried out in a research laboratory. Objective: The aim of the present investigation was to investigate the usefulness of recording CAEPs for verification of hearing aids in a clinical set up. Material And Methods: CAEPs to stimulus /ma/, /ga/ and /ta/ were recorded from 14 persons with normal hearing and nine persons with mild to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. For persons with hearing impairment, the testing was carried out without a hearing aid (unaided) and with a hearing aid (aided) programmed based on NAL NL 1 prescriptive formula. Results:The results revealed that in aided condition, the detectability of CAEP responses was more when compared to unaided condition in persons with hearing impairment. There was a significant difference between the unaided CAEP responses of persons with hearing impairment and CAEP responses of persons with normal hearing. However, no such difference was observed between aided CAEPS responses of persons with hearing impairment and those of normal hearing. Conclusions: CAEPs can be reliably recorded in a clinical set up from individuals using hearing aids. The detectability of responses increases when a person is wearing hearing aid. CAEPs will be helpful in verification of hearing aids especially in persons with moderately severe to severe hearing loss.

show abstract

Effect of Hearing Impairment on Event-Related Potentials for Tone and Speech Distinctions

Cited by 20 publications

References 11 publications

Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Children with a Hearing Loss: A Pilot Study

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Persons Using Hearing Aids

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About