Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic

Abstract

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.

The development of the N1 and N2 components in auditory oddball paradigms: a systematic review with narrative analysis and suggested normative values

“…In addition, it has been recently found that aging is related with a decrease in event-related spectral power activity, a low phase locking in N1 theta (4-7 Hz) band over the parietal/frontal regions and with a decrease of functional connections in the alpha Development of the N1 and N2 components 123 (7-13 Hz) and beta (13-30 Hz) bands (Ho et al 2012); this might indicate a higher neuroplasticity of younger brains and easy engagement of attentional resources. Lastly, if we consider and combine results on P3 amplitude decrement and topography change to two distinct foci of activity over age and neuropsychological deficits pointed by several studies, it may be concluded that aging is associated with a general difficulty to distinguish relevant stimulation from irrelevant stimuli, in other words difficulties in selection, categorization and storing in working memory (Picton et al 1984;Iragui et al 1993;Lembreghts et al 1995;Friedman et al 1997;Amenedo and Díaz 1998;Polich 2007;Martin et al 2008).…”

Spatio‐temporal distribution of brain activity associated with audio‐visually congruent and incongruent speech and the McGurk Effect

“…Grand‐average waveforms provided time frames to assist in identification and latency measurements of individual subject responses (Martin et al. 2008): P1c was defined as the positive‐going peak or inflection on the negative‐going slope following stimulus onset P2, between 280 and 370 msec following stimulus onset (~50 msec after consonant onset); N1c was defined as the negativity occurring at FCz between 400 and 440 msec (~120 msec from consonant onset); P2c was defined as the largest positive‐going peak following N1c at Fcz between 470 and 500 msec (~180 msec from consonant onset); and N2c as the following negative peak at 500–560 msec from stimulus onset (~220 msec from consonant onset).…”

Effect of auditory training on the middle latency response in children with (central) auditory processing disorder

“…There is emerging evidence that auditory-evoked potentials can be used as an objective, noninvasive tool to investigate auditory processing and plasticity of auditory function in humans (2,(7)(8)(9)(10)(11). Kraus et al (12) observed that listeners with normal hearing who received extensive training in a subtle speech contrast task had corresponding changes in the MMN elicited by these speech differences, as well as improvements in behavioral discrimination performance.…”