Forward masking and cognitive-language skills in children as a function of literacy stage
Nathália Hollanda da Fonsêca; Bianca Arruda Manchester de Queiroga; Ana Cristina de Albuquerque Montenegro; Pedro de Lemos Menezes; Denise Costa Menezes; Silvana Maria Sobral Griz
Abstract
Purpose: to investigate the relation between forward masking and cognitive-language skills in children as a function of literacy stage.
Methods: twenty-seven children registered in literacy stage at public schools, aged from 6 to 9 years old, with no learning difficulties or audiological problems reported, participated in this study. Frequency Following Responses were registered in two test conditions: 1) /da/ alone; 2) /da/ presented 4 milliseconds after a speech noise. Two language protocols were applied: a cognitive-linguistic skills protocol and a phonological awareness one.
Results: forward masking was evident in Frequency Following Responses of all children regardless of literacy stage. Frequency Following Responses latencies in both testing conditions showed no difference among participants’ age. Cognitive-language skills scores were below those expected for all children, with significant improvement noticed as a function of age. No correlation between language performance and forward masking was found.
Conclusion: there was no relation between forward masking and cognitive-language skills in children, as a function of literacy stage.
Keywords
Referencias
1. Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear and Hearing. 2010;31(3):302-24.
2. Bayat A, Farhadi M, Emamdjomeh H, Saki N, Mirmomeni G, Rahim F. Effect of conductive hearing loss on central auditory function. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;83(2):137-41.
3. Anderson LA, Linden JF. Mind the gap: two dissociable mechanisms of temporal processing in the auditory system. J. Neurosci. 2016;36(6):1977-95.
4. Berti LC. Desempenho perceptivo-auditivo de crianças na identificação de contrastes fônicos. Alfa, R. 2017;61(1):81.
5. Villega CCS, Berti LC. Desempenho perceptivo auditivo de crianças na identificação de contrastes fonológico entre as fricativas. RABRALIN. 2016;15(3):205-26.
6. Bertachini AL, Pupo AC, Morettin M, Martinez MAN, Bevilacqua MC, Moret ALM et al. Frequency Modulation System and speech perception in the classroom: a systematic literature review. CoDAS. 2015;27(3):292-300.
7. White-schwoch T, Carr KW, Thompson EC, Anderson S, Nicol T, Bradlow AR et al. Auditory processing in noise: a preschool biomarker for literacy. PLoS biology. 2015;13(7):1002196.
8. Vilela N, Wertzner HF, Sanches SGG, Neves-Lobo IF, Carvallo RMM. Processamento temporal de crianças com transtorno fonológico submetidas ao treino auditivo: estudo piloto. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012;24(1):42-8.
9. Vellozo FF, Schwantes AL, Souza AEH, Peixes BP, Biaggio EPV, Martins QP et al. Temporal resolution in elderly. Rev. CEFAC. 2016;18(2):355-61.
10. Betti T, Bruno RB, Oppitz SJ, Bruckmann M, Garcia MV. Melodic pattern test of temporal processing: an analysis of different types of responses. Audiol. Commun. Res. 2016;21:e1666.
11. Filippini R, Schochat E. A new paradigm for temporal masking assessment: pilot study. CoDAS. 2014;26(4):302-7.
12. Hodge SE, Menezes DC, Brown KD, Grose JH. Forward masking of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Oto. Neurotol. 2018;39(2):150-7.
13. 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. Hear. Res. 2017;346:e 34-44.
14. Moojen S, Lamprecht R, Santos RM, Freitas GM, Brodacz R, Siqueira M et al. CONFIAS Consciência Fonológica: Instrumento de Avaliação Sequencial. São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo, 2003.
15. Capellini S. Protocolo de Avaliação de Habilidades Cognitivo-Linguísticas: livro do profissional e do professor. Riberião Preto, SP: Booktoy, 2017.
16. Sanfins MD, Borges LR, Ubiali T, Donadon C, Diniz TAH, Hatzopoulos S et al. Speech-evoked brainstem response in normal adolescent and children speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;90:e12-19.
17. Thompson EC, Carr KW, White-Schwoch T, Otto-Meyer S, Kraus N. Individual differences in speech-in-noise perception parallel neural speech processing and attention in preschoolers. Hear. Res. 2017;344:148-57.
18. Mamo SK, Grose JH, Buss E. Perceptual sensitivy to, and electrophysiological enconding of, a complex periodic signal: effcts of age. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(7):441-9.
19. Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children. Hear. Res. 2012;284(1-1):52-8.
20. Meng Z, Zheng Y, Wang K, Li D. Evaluation of speech perception in competing noise conditions for normally hearing children. Noise Health. 2013;15(64):178.
21. Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cereb. Cortex. 2011;22(5):1180-90.
22. Martins CIS, Queiroga BAMD, Rosal AGC, Cordeiro AA. Comparative analysis of cognitive-linguistic evaluation in normal hearing schoolchildren and users of cochlear implants. CoDAS. 2018;30(4):e20170133.
23. Rosal AGC, Cordeiro AAA, Silva ACF, Silva RL, Queiroga BAMD. Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid serial naming for initial learning of writing. Rev. CEFAC. 2016;8(1):74-85.
24. Tichko P, Skoe E. Musical experience, sensorineural auditory processing, and reading subskills in adults. Brain Sci. 2018;8(5):77.
25. Bonacina S, Krizman J, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Clapping in time parallels literacy and calls upon overlapping neural mechanisms in early readers. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2018;1423(1):338-48.
Submitted date:
11/10/2021
Accepted date:
08/11/2021
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email