Assessment protocols for forward masking in Frequency-Following Response
Protocolos de avaliação do pós-mascaramento em Frequency-Following Response
Denise Costa Menezes; Silvana Maria Sobral Griz; Anne Karoline Lima de Araújo; Leonardo Gleygson Angelo Venâncio; Karina Paes Advincula; Pedro de Lemos Menezes
Abstract
Purpose: to investigate forward masking by comparing latencies values of positive and negative peaks in frequency-following responses (FFR) recordings, in normally hearing young adults.
Methods: from a database, 20 FFR recordings were selected, 10 being from men, and 10 from women, aged 18 to 25 years, with normal hearing. They were qualitatively analyzed by two experienced researchers and also analyzed, according to two different protocols of recording identification: (i) predominance of positive peaks – PV, A, PW, PX, PY, PZ, and O waves; and (ii) predominance of negative peaks – V, A, C, D, E, F, and O waves. The Shapiro-Wilk normality test, the Wilcoxon test, and the Student’s t-test were conducted, by adopting the significance level of p<0.05.
Results: the comparative analysis of latency peak values did not reveal any significant difference between the studied protocols. However, the standard deviation was higher for absolute latency values as compared to negative peaks, suggesting an inverted pattern of what was expected.
Conclusion: forward masking was identified in both proposals and the protocol of predominant positive peaks was less variable.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: investigar o pós-mascaramento em marcações com predominância de picos positivos comparado com as marcações com predominância de picos negativos nos registros de Frequency-Following Response (FFR) em indivíduos adultos jovens com audição normal.
Métodos: trata-se de um estudo conduzido a partir de um banco de dados, onde foram selecionados 20 registros do FFR (10 homens; 10 mulheres, com idade entre 18 e 25 anos, com a audição normal) e realizada análise qualitativa por duas examinadoras experientes. Os registros foram analisados segundo dois protocolos distintos de marcação dos registros: (i) análise com predominância de picos positivos – marcação das ondas PV, A, PW, PX, PY, PZ e O; e, (ii) análise com predominância de picos negativos – marcação das ondas V, A, C, D, E, F e O. Foram realizados o teste de normalidade Shapiro-Wilk, o teste de Wilcoxon e o teste t de Student. Foi adotado o nível de significância de p<0,05.
Resultados: a análise comparativa das marcações realizadas não mostrou diferença significante entre os protocolos estudados. Nos valores de desvio padrão, foram observados valores absolutos mais elevados quando houve a marcação dos picos negativos quando comparado com as respostas obtidas com a marcação dos picos positivos, demonstrando um padrão inverso ao que se espera.
Conclusão: o pós-mascaramento foi identificado em ambas marcações propostas, sendo as marcações com predominância dos picos positivos se mostraram menos variáveis.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Pienkowski M. On the etiology of listening difficulties in noise despite clinically normal audiograms. Ear Hear. 2017;38(2):135-48.
2. Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear. 2010;31(3):302-24.
3. Hodge SA, Menezes DC, Brown KD, Grose JH. Forward masking of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Otol Neurotol. 2018;39(2):150-7.
4. Meyer SO, Krizman J, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Children with autism spectrum disorder have unstable neural responses to sound. Exp Brain Res. 2018;236(3):733-44.
5. Anderson S, Kraus N. The potential role of the cABR in assessment and management of hearing impairment. Int J Otolaryngol. 2013;2013(604729):1-10.
6. Ferreira L, Gubiani MB, Keske-Soares M, Skarzynski PH, Sanfins MD, Biaggio EPV. Analysis of the components of frequency-following response in phonological disorders. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;122(2019):47-51.
7. Ananthakrishnan S, Luo X, Krishnan A. Human frequency following responses to vocoded speech. Ear Hear. 2017;38(5):e256-e267.
8. Mehraei G, Gallardo AP, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Dau T. Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Hearing research. 2017;2017(346):34-44.
9. Peixe BP, Silva DD, Biaggio EPV, Bruno RS, Sanguebuche TR, Garcia MV. Applicability of evoked auditory brainstem responses with complex stimuli in adults with hearing loss. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;22(3):239-44.
10. Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, Costa MLG, Griz SMS. Age effects in temporal auditory processing: modulation masking release and forward masking effect. Audiol., Commun. Res. 2018;23(e1861):1-6.
11. Grose JH, Menezes DC, Porter HL, Griz S. Masking period patterns & forward masking for speech-shaped noise: age-related effects. Ear Hear. 2016;37(1):48-54.
12. Vanfeusden FJ, Chesnay MA, Seven DMS. Envelope frequency following responses are stronger for high-pass than low-pass filtered vowels. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(6):355-62.
13. Necciari T, Laback B, Savel S, Ystad S, Balazs P, Meunier S et al. Auditory time-frequency masking for spectrally and temporally maximally-compact stimuli. PloS one. 2016;11(11):e0166937.
14. Gunaway TS, Ambikairajah E, Epps J. Perceptual speech enhancement exploiting temporal masking properties of human auditory system. Speech Communcation. 2010;52(5):381-93.
Submetido em:
15/07/2019
Aceito em:
25/08/2020
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email