Frequency-Following Response and Auditory Middle Latency Response: an analysis of central auditory processing in young adults

Abstract

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.

Frequency and Time Domain Analysis of EEG Based Auditory Evoked Potentials to Detect Binaural Hearing in Noise

“…Studies have shown that the MLR is modulated by differences in interaural time and intensity cues, which are important for sound localization and binaural fusion [ 29 ]. Furthermore, the MLR has been shown to be associated with the perceptual grouping of sounds, such as the segregation of speech from background noise [ 37 , 38 ]. However, the literature on the MLR in binaural hearing is limited, and more research is required to comprehend its role in binaural hearing.…”