Frequency-Following Response and Auditory Middle Latency Response: an analysis of central auditory processing in young adults
Frequency-Following Response e Auditory Middle Latency Response: uma análise do processamento auditivo central em adultos jovens
Vitor Cantele Malavolta; Milaine Dominici Sanfins; Larine da Silva Soares; Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Hélinton Goulart Moreira; Vanessa de Oliveira Cristiano Nascimento; Christine Grellmann Schumacher; Arielly Freitas Moura; Sandi Severo de Lima; Aline Andressa Mundt; Tainá Betti; Michele Vargas Garcia
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.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: comparar a latência e a amplitude do Frequency-Following Response e do Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência em indivíduos típicos e com alterações das habilidades auditivas, assim como investigar a sensibilidade e especificidade de ambas as avaliações frente ao processamento auditivo central.
Métodos: 32 indivíduos de ambos os sexos foram distribuídos em Grupo 1 (sem alterações de habilidades auditivas) e Grupo 2 (com alteração em habilidades auditivas). Os grupos foram divididos de acordo com testes comportamentais do processamento auditivo central. Os indivíduos de ambos os grupos foram submetidos aos potenciais evocados auditivos. O teste T de Student foi utilizado para a análise, considerando 5% de significância.
Resultados: no Grupo 2, V e A apresentaram maior latência e menor amplitude e slope. O Grupo 2 também apresentou menores amplitudes de Na e Pa nas ondas A1C3 e A2C3. O Frequency-Following Response apresentou 93% de sensibilidade e especificidade, enquanto o Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência apresentou 87% de sensibilidade e 93% de especificidade.
Conclusão: os indivíduos com alteração das habilidades auditivas apresentaram maior latência e menor amplitude de resposta no Frequency Following Response e Potencial Evocado Auditivo de Média Latência em relação aos indivíduos típicos. O Frequency-Following Response apresentou melhor equilíbrio de sensibilidade e especificidade.
Palavras-chave
Referencias
1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005b). (Central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. Available at: http://www.asha.org/docs/html/TR2005-00043.html. Accessed 2022 feb 18.
2. Moore DR. Auditory processing disorder. Ear Hear. 2018 39(4):617-20.
3. Obuchi C, Ogane S, Sato Y, Kaga K. Auditory symptoms and psychological characteristics in adults with auditory processing disorders. J Otol. 2017 12(3):132-7. doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2017.05.001.
4. Filippini R, Weihing J, Chermak GD, Musiek FE. Current issues in the diagnosis and treatment of CAPD in children. In: Geffner D, Ross-Swain D, editors. Auditory processing disorders: assessment, management, and treatment. 3rd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2019. p.3-36.
5. Schochat E, Rocha-Muniz CN, Filippini R. Understanding Auditory Processing Disorder through the FFR. In: Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. The Frequency-Following Response. Cham: Springer; 2017. p.225-50.
6. Mattsson TS, Lind O, Follestad T, Grøndahl K, Wilson W, Nicholas J et al. Electrophysiological characteristics in children with listening difficulties, with or without auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol. 2019;58(11):704-16. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1621396.
7. Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear. 2010;31(3):302-24. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181cdb272.
8. Weihing J, Schochat E, Musiek F. Ear and electrode effects reduce within- group variability in middle latency response amplitude measures. Int J Audiol. 2012;51(5):405-12. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.658970.
9. Kraus N, Anderson S, White-Schwoch T. The Frequency-Following Response: a window into human communication. In: Kraus N, Anderson S, White- Schwoch T, Fay RR, Popper AN, editors. The Frequency-Following Response: a window into human communication. Cham: Springer; 2017. p.1-15.
10. Coffey EBJ, Nicol T, White-Schwoch T, Chandrasekaran B, Krizman J, Skoe E et al. Evolving perspectives on the sources of the frequency-following response. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):5036.
11. Hornickel J, Kraus N. Unstable representation of sound: a biological marker of dyslexia. J Neurosci. 2013;33(8):3500-4. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4205-12.2013.
12. Johnson K, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Developmental plasticity in the human auditory brainstem. JNeurosci. 2008;28(15):4000-7. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0012-08.2008.
13. Sanguebuche TR, Peixe BP, Bruno RS, Biaggio EPV, Garcia MV. Speech- evoked brainstem auditory responses and auditory processing skills: a correlation in adults with hearing loss. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;22(01):38-44. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603109.
14. Liu P, Zhu H, Chen M, Hong Q, Chi X. Electrophysiological screening for children with suspected auditory processing disorder: a systematic review. Front. Neurol. 2021;12:692840. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2021.692840.
15. Hall JW III. New Handbook of auditory evoked responses. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2007.
16. American Academy of Audiology. Clinical practice guidelines: diagnosis, treatment and management of children and adults with central auditory processing disorder. [homepage on the internet]. 2010 [accessed 2022 feb 20]. Available at: https://www.audiology.org/publications/guidelines-and-standards
17. Schochat E, Rabelo CM, Loreti RCA. Sensitividade e especificidade do potencial de média latência. Rev. Bras. Otorrinolaringol. 2004;70(3):353-8. doi: 10.1590/S0034-72992004000300011.
18. Rocha-Muniz CN, Befi-Lopes DM, Schochat E. Sensitivity, specificity and efficiency of speech- evoked ABR. Hear Res. 2014 317:15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2014.09.004.
19. Organização Mundial de Saúde - OMS [homepage on the internet]. 2014 [accessed 2020 oct 12]. Available at: http://www.who.int/pbd/deafness/hearing_impairment_grades/en/.
20. Maruthy S, Mannarukrishnaiah J. Effect of early onset otitis media on brainstem and cortical auditory processing. Behav Brain Funct. 2008;2(4):17. doi: 10.1186/1744-9081-4-17
21. Costa J, Valls-Solé J, Valldeoriola F, Pech C, Rumià J. Single subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimuli inhibit the blink reflex in Parkinson’s disease patients. Brain. 2006;129(7):1758-67. doi: 10.1093/brain/awl143.
22. Webster R. The auditory brainstem response (ABR): a normative study using the Intelligent Hearing System’s smart evoked potential system [thesis]. Towson, Maryland (USA): Towson University; 2017.
23. Santos FMC, Pereira LD. Escuta com dígitos. In: Pereira LD, Schochat E, editors. Processamento auditivo central: manual de avaliação. 1st edition. São Paulo: Lovise; 1997. p.147-50.
24. Sanguebuche TR, Peixe BP, Garcia MV. Behavioral tests in adults: reference values and comparison between groups presenting or not central auditory processing disorder. Rev. CEFAC. 2020;22(1):e13718. doi: 10.1590/1982- 0216/202022113718.
25. Humes LE, Bess FH. Audiology & communication disorders an overview. 4th edition. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
26. Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol. 1970;92(4):311-24. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1970.04310040005002
27. Jerger J, Jerger S, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry. Normal and sensorineural ears. Arch. Otolaringol. 1972;96(6):513-23. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1972.00770090791004.
28. Dias KZ, Jutras B, Acrani IO, Pereira LD. Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) performance of individuals with central auditory processing disorders from 5 to 25 years of age. Int J Ped Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;76(2):174-8.doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.10.022.
29. Weihing J, Atcherson SR. Dichotic listening tests. In: Musiek FE, Chermak G, editors. Handbook of central auditory processing disorder. San Diego: Plural Puablishing; 2014. p.369-404.
30. Vellozo FF, Schwantes AL, Souza AEH, Peixe BP, Biaggio EPV, Martins QP et al. Temporal resolution in elderly. Rev. CEFAC. 2016;18(2):355-61. doi:10.1590/1982-0216201618219915.
31. Heeke P, Vermiglio AJ, Bulla E, Velappan K, Fang X. The relationship between random gap detection and hearing in noise test performances. J Am Acad Audiol. 2018;29(10):948-54. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18005.
32. Sartori AATK, Delecrode CR, Cardoso AVC. (Central) auditory processing in schoolers in initial literacy grades. CoDAS. 2019;31(1):e20170237.doi: 10.1590/2317-1782/20182018237.
33. Pereira LD, Schochat E. Testes auditivos comportamentais para avaliação do processamento auditivo central. 2a edição. Barueri: Pró-Fono; 2011.
34. Keith RW. Standardization of the Time Compressed Sentence Test. Journal of Educational Audiology. 2002;10:15-20.
35. Sanfins MD, Garcia MV, Biaggio EPV, Skarzynski PH. The Frequency Following Response: evaluations in different age groups. In: Hatzopoulos S, editor. The human auditory system: basic features and updates on audiological diagnosis and therapy. 1st edition. IntechOpen; 2019.
36. Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004;115(9):2021-30. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.04.003.
37. Kumar P, Singh NK. BioMARK as electrophysiological tool for assessing children at risk for (central) auditory processing disorders without reading deficits. Hear Res. 2015;324:54-8. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.03.001.
38. Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N. Test-retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Clinical Neurophysiology. 2011;122(2):343-55. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.07.009.
39. Hall III JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses: principles, procedures & protocols. Pearson Education; 2015.
40. McPherson DL, Ballachanda BB, Kaf W. Middle and Long Latency Evoked Potentials. In: Roeser RJ, Valente M, Dunn HH, editors. Audiology: diagnosis. 2a edição. New York: Thieme; 2008. p.443-77.
41. Nakajima Y, Matsuda M, Ueda K, Remijn GB. Temporal resolution needed for auditory communication: measurement with mosaic speech. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018;12(149):1-8. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00149.
42. Romero ACL, Sorci BB, Frizzo ACF. Relationship between auditory evoked potentials and middle latency auditory processing disorder: cases study. Rev. CEFAC. 2013;15(2):478-84. doi: 10.1590/ S1516-18462013005000002.
43. Schochat E, Musiek FE, Alonso R, Ogata J. Effect of auditory training on the middle latency response in children with (central) auditory processing disorder. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2010;43(8):777-85. doi: 10.1590/S0100- 879X2010007500069.
Submitted date:
28/08/2022
Accepted date:
21/09/2022
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email