Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing emerge across development

Krizman, Jennifer; Bonacina, Silvia; Kraus, Nina

doi:10.1016/j.heares.2019.07.002

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For ABRs, the typical findings are that the latency of Wave V is shorter in females than males, and the amplitudes of Waves I and V are more robust in females than males (e.g., [3][4][5][6][7]). There is evidence that these sex differences in ABRs are not solely attributable to the generally smaller head size in females [8-11, but compare 3, 12] and instead may be attributable to sex differences in the cochlea [9] and subcortical neural differences [11].…”

Section: A Experimental Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing evidence suggests that the sex difference in Wave V does not exist in newborns but does exist prior to puberty [ 3 , 11 ]. To the extent that cochlear differences contribute to the sex differences in AEPs, the implication is that something develops differently in the base of the cochlea for one or both sexes because the peaks of the ABR commonly are attributed to neural activity originating from the basal (high-frequency) half of the basilar membrane [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To the extent that cochlear differences contribute to the sex differences in AEPs, the implication is that something develops differently in the base of the cochlea for one or both sexes because the peaks of the ABR commonly are attributed to neural activity originating from the basal (high-frequency) half of the basilar membrane [ 13 ]. To the extent that neural differences contribute to the sex differences in AEPs, the implication is that something synaptic or axonal develops differently in the two sexes, perhaps under hormonal influence [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) and auditory middle-latency responses (AMLRs) to a click stimulus were measured in about 100 subjects. Of interest were the sex differences in those auditory evoked potentials (AEPs), the correlations between the various AEP measures, and the correlations between the AEP measures and measures of otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) and behavioral performance also measured on the same subjects. Also of interest was how the menstrual cycle affected the various AEP measures. Most ABR measures and several AMLR measures exhibited sex differences, and many of the former were substantial. The sex differences tended to be larger for latency than for amplitude of the waves, and they tended to be larger for a weak click stimulus than for a strong click. The largest sex difference was for Wave-V latency (effect size ~1.2). When subjects were dichotomized into Non-Whites and Whites, the race differences in AEPs were small within sex. However, sex and race interacted so that the sex differences often were larger for the White subjects than for the Non-White subjects, particularly for the latency measures. Contrary to the literature, no AEP measures differed markedly across the menstrual cycle. Correlations between various AEP measures, and between AEP and OAE measures, were small and showed no consistent patterns across sex or race categories. Performance on seven common psychoacoustical tasks was only weakly correlated with individual AEP measures (just as was true for the OAEs also measured on these subjects). AMLR Wave Pa unexpectedly did not show the decrease in latency and increase in amplitude typically observed for AEPs when click level was varied from 40 to 70 dB nHL (normal Hearing Level). For the majority of the measures, the variability of the distribution of scores was greater for the males than for the females.

show abstract

Section: A Experimental Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The FFR is useful to address questions concerning impaired auditory processing in populations with impaired cochlear function 23–26 , and in neurodevelopmental speech and language disorders 27–32 or autism 33,34 . It can also be used to study maturational 35,36 and aging-related changes 37,38 , sex differences in auditory functions 39 , and improvement caused by interventions 15,40–42 . More broadly, the FFR can provide an index of neurological health, for instance, in populations with acquired neurological disorders (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The auditory frequency-following response (FFR) is a non-invasive index of the fidelity of sound encoding in the brain, and is used to study the integrity, plasticity, and behavioral relevance of the neural encoding of sound. In this Perspective, we review recent evidence suggesting that, in humans, the FFR arises from multiple cortical and subcortical sources, not just subcortically as previously believed, and we illustrate how the FFR to complex sounds can enhance the wider field of auditory neuroscience. Far from being of use only to study basic auditory processes, the FFR is an uncommonly multifaceted response yielding a wealth of information, with much yet to be tapped.

show abstract

“…Speci cally, onset of the neural response is indicated by wave V and its negative trough wave A, while offset of the response is indicated by wave O. Phase locking to the fundamental frequency of the stimulus is re ected by latencies for waves D, E, and F (35,51). The /j / stimulus provides information regarding the delity of neural pitch tracking.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural Processing of Speech Sounds in ASD and First-Degree Relatives

Patel¹,

Winston²,

Guilfoyle³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Efficient neural encoding of sound plays a critical and widespread role in speech and language, and when impaired, may have reverberating effects on a range of communication skills. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a condition involving impaired communication abilities, including atypical prosody (e.g., intonation modulation, rate, rhythm), in which atypical neural processing of speech has been implicated. Parallel patterns of communication differences have been noted in parents of individuals with ASD, who may exhibit subclinical language-related differences believed to reflect genetic liability to ASD. The present study investigated disruptions to neural processing of temporal and spectral (i.e., frequency/pitch) properties of speech sounds as a potential neurobiological mechanism underlying specific language-related impairments in ASD and related subclinical differences documented among first-degree relatives of individuals with ASD. Methods: Participants included individuals with ASD, their parents, and respective control groups. Group differences in temporal and spectral processing based on the neural FFR were assessed using MANCOVAs controlling for chronological age. Relationships between the FFR, pragmatic language ability, and receptive and expressive prosody skills were assessed using Pearson correlations. Familiality of the FFR in mother-child dyads were also examined using Pearson correlations.Results: Findings revealed inefficiencies in neural encoding of speech sounds in both individuals with ASD and their parents (specifically, increased neural noise and delayed neural processing of speech sounds), as well as a less robust neural representation of spectral properties of speech sounds in individuals with ASD. Associations between neural processing of speech sounds and language-related abilities were detected in both groups, along with evidence of familiality of neural pitch processing in the ASD family groups. Limitations: Additional investigation is necessary to determine whether relationships between FFR and pragmatic language and prosody extend to individuals with more severe language and/or cognitive impairments. Conclusions: Overall, results suggest atypical neural processing of speech sounds may constitute an important, heritable ingredient contributing to the ASD language phenotype and subclinical phenotypic expression of genetic liability in parents.

show abstract

Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing emerge across development

Cited by 29 publications

References 43 publications

Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks

Auditory evoked potentials: Differences by sex, race, and menstrual cycle and correlations with common psychoacoustical tasks

Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response

Neural Processing of Speech Sounds in ASD and First-Degree Relatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About