Effects of Hearing Aid Amplification and Stimulus Intensity on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Billings, Curtis J.; Tremblay, Kelly L.; Souza, Pamela E.; Binns, Malcolm A.

doi:10.1159/000101331

Cited by 95 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Given some subtle indications of a level effect in this study and the literature, it may be that level encoding is present, but that the stronger SNR effect conceals any level coding. The strong effect of SNR seems to come at the expense of the signal level sensitivity that is present without background noise (e.g., Adler and Adler 1989;Billings et al 2007). Interestingly, near-field animal studies demonstrate that signal level, in the presence of background noise, is encoded to varying degrees at different levels in the central auditory pathway; these effects are seen in systematic shifts in the neural firing rate-level functions (Phillips 1990;Costalupes et al 1984;Gibson et al 1985;Rees and Palmer 1988).…”

Section: Electrophysiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While N1 and P2 are thought to be obligatory neural responses that are dependent upon the acoustics of the stimulus, the effect of signal level was absent or greatly diminished when signals were presented in noise. An absent signal level effect was surprising given the robust effect of signal level in quiet (Adler and Adler 1989;Billings et al 2007). This effect of context (i.e., distinct sensitivity to signal level in quiet compared to when background noise is present) is important to understand from both physiological and behavioral perspectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Predicting Perception in Noise Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Billings

McMillan

Penman

et al. 2013

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech perception in background noise is a common challenge across individuals and health conditions (e.g., hearing impairment, aging, etc.). Both behavioral and physiological measures have been used to understand the important factors that contribute to perception-in-noise abilities. The addition of a physiological measure provides additional information about signal-in-noise encoding in the auditory system and may be useful in clarifying some of the variability in perception-in-noise abilities across individuals. Fifteen young normal-hearing individuals were tested using both electrophysiology and behavioral methods as a means to determine (1) the effects of signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) and signal level and (2) how well cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) can predict perception in noise. Three correlation/regression approaches were used to determine how well CAEPs predicted behavior. Main effects of SNR were found for both electrophysiology and speech perception measures, while signal level effects were found generally only for speech testing. These results demonstrate that when signals are presented in noise, sensitivity to SNR cues obscures any encoding of signal level cues. Electrophysiology and behavioral measures were strongly correlated. The best physiological predictors (e.g., latency, amplitude, and area of CAEP waves) of behavior (SNR at which 50 % of the sentence is understood) were N1 latency and N1 amplitude measures. In addition, behavior was best predicted by the 70-dB signal/5-dB SNR CAEP condition. It will be important in future studies to determine the relationship of electrophysiology and behavior in populations who experience difficulty understanding speech in noise such as those with hearing impairment or age-related deficits.

show abstract

Section: Electrophysiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Perception in Noise Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Billings

McMillan

Penman

et al. 2013

JARO

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These generators are situated in the primary and secondary auditory cortices, including Herschel's gyrus, the superior temporal lobe, and the planumtemporale [3] . It was reported that late thalamic projections into the auditory cortex are the generators for the P1 potential [4] . It was also reported that the lateral frontal supra temporal auditory cortex and the nonspecific polysensory system are the generators for the P2 potential [5] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Auditory late latency responses are affected by many factors, including arousal and type of attention; in addition, obligatory auditory LLRs (ALLRs) are influenced by stimulus factors since they are transient responses to external stimuli. The stimulus parameters that influence CAEP characteristics include the presentation rate [5,7] , stimulus duration [8][9][10] , stimulus level [4,11,12] , and type of speech sound [10,[13][14][15][16] or tonal stimulus frequency [17,18] . In a previous study [19] , non-speech vs. speech stimuli and natural vs. synthetic speech stimuli were compared.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Intensity on the Speech Evoked Auditory Late Latency Response in Normal Hearing Individuals

Prakash

Abraham²,

Rajashekar³

et al. 2016

Int Adv Otol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE:Among the stimulus factors, the influence of presentation level is less studied in normal-hearing individuals when using speech stimuli withvarious presentation levels for the auditory late latency response (ALLR). Hence, the present study aimed to explore the Latency-Intensity (L-I) function, i.e., how the latency and amplitude change as a function of intensity using speech stimuli. MATERIALS and METHODS:Speech-evoked ALLR was obtained from 15 normal-hearing individuals. The syllable/ta/ was used to record ALLR with an intensity of 30, 50, 70, and 90 dBSPL. Electroencephalography (EEG) from five channels was recorded and analyzed offline. RESULTS:The overall results revealed that there is an influence of intensity on P1 and N1 latencies in a nonlinear fashion. The latency change is consistent at lower intensities than at moderate and high intensities. The amplitude changes did not reach significance, though a decrease with a reduction in intensity was obvious. CONCLUSION:There is a significant effect of intensity on the latency and amplitude of ALLR in speech stimulus. However, this effect may vary for different speech stimuli.

show abstract

“…With this impasse, it was possible to observe increasing interest for the CAEP, which was revitalized by studies that showed its clinical use in various scenarios of auditory, learning, mental, and neurological changes (8) . Recent studies (3,(9)(10)(11)(12) show that the CAEPs obtained from speech stimuli are promising for the hearing rehabilitation of individuals, because they provide information referring to the objective record of speech stimuli detection and processing in the auditory cortex, with or without a hearing-aid device. Therefore, the assessment of cortical responses would lead to important complementary information about the perception (or the lack of perception) of the amplified sound.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Durante¹,

Wieselberg²,

Carvalho³

et al. 2014

CoDAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To analyze the presence of auditory cortical potential and its correlation with psychoacoustic detection of speech sounds as well as the latency of the P1, N1 e P2 components presented in free field in hearing impaired adults with and without amplification.Methods:We evaluated 22 adults with moderate to severe symmetrical bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, regular users of bilateral hearing aids. Speech sounds of low (/m/), medium (/g/) and high (/t/) frequencies were presented in sound field in decreasing intensities of 75, 65 and of 55 dBSPL in free field with and without hearing aids. The used equipment performs automatic statistical detection of the presence of response; forthermore, the latencies of waves P1, N1 e P2 were labeled and the psychoacoustic perception was registered.Results:The results demonstrated the increased presence of cortical response with hearing aids. We observed the correlation between psychoacoustic perception and automatic detection of 91% for the sounds /g/ and /t/ and ranged from 73 to 86% for the sound /m/. The averages of latencies P1-P2-N1 decreased with both increasing intensity and the use of hearing aids for the three sounds. The differences were significant for the sounds /g/ and /t/ in comparison with and without hearing aids.Conclusion:There was increase in the presence of cortical auditory evoked potential with hearing aids. Automatic detection of cortical response provided with hearing aids showed 91% agreement with the psychoacoustic perception of the speech signal. In the analysis of latency measures of the P1, N1 and P2 components, it was observed a decrease with the increase of the signal intensity and the use of amplification for the three speech stimuli /m/, /g/ and /t/.

show abstract

Effects of Hearing Aid Amplification and Stimulus Intensity on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Cited by 95 publications

References 72 publications

Predicting Perception in Noise Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

Predicting Perception in Noise Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

The Effect of Intensity on the Speech Evoked Auditory Late Latency Response in Normal Hearing Individuals

Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing aid users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About