medigraphic.com
Academia Mexicana de Neurología, A.C.

2016, Number 5

Next >>

Rev Mex Neuroci 2016; 17 (5)

Temporal characteristics and topographical distribution of cortical auditory evoked potentials elicited by Spanish words in an adult population

Granados-Trejo NP, Castañeda-Villa N, Cornejo-Cruz JM

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 3-14
PDF size: 750.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP) have been used to objectively evaluate speech perception in normal hearing subjects and hearing aid (AA) and/or cochlear implant (IC) users. However, there is not a lot of literature about these potential elicited using Spanish words.
Objective: To characterize in time (latency and amplitude) and space (topographic maps) the CAEP elicited by four commonly used words in Spanish language, in normal hearing adults.
Methods: Multichannel recordings of CAEP from 10 subjects were analyzed; subjects have not hearing loss or neurological disorders. Stimuli used were the Spanish words: /bota/, /papa/, /lobo/ and /sabor/. One way analysis of variance was performed to determine significant differences between the latencies and amplitudes of the CAEP peaks, as well as differences in topographic maps of the peaks of the response.
Results: P1-N1-P2 complexes followed by an acoustic complex change (ACC) were identified in all the recordings. The first complex appears within 210 ms and the second between 230 and 400 ms after the stimulus onset. For words /lobo/ and / sabor / P1-N1-P2 complex had high amplitude; contrary to what was observed in /bota/ and /papa/ with prominent ACC. Topographic maps mainly have a fronto-central distribution.
Conclusions: It was possible to record CAEP using words in Spanish as stimulation. The characterization of this response lays the foundation of an objective test to measure speech perception in Spanish; it could be used to measure objectively the performance of subject user of AA and / or IC.


REFERENCES

  1. Picton TW, Bentin S, Berg P, Donchin E., Hillyard SA, Johnson R, et al. Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: Recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology 2000; 37: 127–152.

  2. Martin A, Brett A, Boothroyd, Martin. Cortical, Auditory, Event-Related Potentials in Response to Periodic and Aperiodic Stimuli with the Same Spectral Envelope. Ear & Hearing 1999; 20: 33–44.

  3. Pulvermüller F, Shtyrov Y. Language outside the focus of attention: the mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Prog Neurobiol 2006; 79: 49–7.

  4. Witteman J, Goerlich-Dobre KS, Martens S, Aleman A, Van Heuven VJ, and Schiller NO. The nature of hemispheric specialization for prosody perception. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2014; 143: 1104–1114.

  5. Sharma A, Martin K, Roland P. P1 latency as a biomarker for central auditory development in children with hearing impairment. J. Academy Audiol 2005; 16: 564–573.

  6. Tremblay KL, Billings CJ, Friesen LM, Souza PE. Neural Representation of Amplified Speech Sounds, Ear Hear 2006; 27: 93–103.

  7. Tremblay KL, Kalstein L, Billings C, and Souza PE. The neural representation of consonant-vowel transitions in adults who wear hearing Aids. Trends Amplif 2006; 10: 155–62.

  8. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin. Neurophysiol 2003; 114: 1332–1343.

  9. Friesen L, Tremblay K, and Rohila N. Evoked cortical activity and speech recognition as a function of the number of simulated cochlear implant channels. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120: 776–782.

  10. Billings CJ, Papesh MA, Penman TM, Baltzell LS, Gallun FJ. Clinical use of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials as a measure of physiological detection or physiological discrimination. Int. J. Otolaryngol. 2012: 1: 1-15.

  11. Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee TJ, and Nicol TG. Developmental changes in P1 and N1 central auditory responses elicited by consonant-vowel syllables. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Potentials Sect 1997; 104: 540–545.

  12. Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116: 648–57.

  13. Garinis A, Cone-Wesson B. Effects of stimulus level on cortical auditory event-related potentials evoked by speech, J. Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18:2, 107–116.

  14. Bellis TJ, Nicol T, Kraus N, Aging Affects Hemispheric Asymmetry in the Neural Representation of Speech Sounds. J. Neursoscience 2000; 20: 791–797.

  15. Rivera-Gaxiola M, Garcia-Sierra A, Lara-Ayala L, Cadena C, Jackson-Maldonado D, Kuhl PK. Eventrelated potentials to an english/spanish syllabic contrast in mexican 10-13-month-old infants. ISRN Neurol 2012; 2012: 1-9.

  16. Garcia-Sierra A, Rivera-Gaxiola M, Percaccio CR, Conboy BT, Romo H, Klarman L, et al. Bilingual language learning: An ERP study relating early brain responses to speech, language input, and later word production. J Phon 2011; 39: 546–557.

  17. Rivera-Gaxiola M, Silva-Pereyra , Klarman L, Garcia-Sierra A, Lara-Ayala L, Cadena-Salazar C et al. Principal component analyses and scalp distribution of the auditory P150-250 and N250-550 to speech contrasts in Mexican and American infants. Dev. Neuropsychol 2007; 31: 363–78.

  18. Rivera-Gaxiola M, Klarman CAL, Garcia-sierra A, Kuhl PK. Neural patterns to speech and vocabulary growth in American infants. Dev Neurosci 2005; 4: 495–8.

  19. Granados-Ramos DE, Torres-Morales P, Cervantes-Méndez HDJ, Castañeda-Villa N, Romero- Esquiliano G. Mismatch Negativity ( MMN ) y lenguaje en niños preescolares hablantes del idioma español. Mismatch negativity ( MMN ) and language in Spanish-speakers preschool children. Rev Chil Neuropsicol 2013; 8: 1–5.

  20. Martínez A, Rufiner L, Cornejo JM, Cadena M, Herrera E., Análisis Espectral de una Lista de Palabras. An. del VIII Congr. la Asosciación Mex. Audiol. Foniatría y Comun. Humana 1997, 1–6.

  21. Boersma BP, Van Heuven V, Speak and unSpeak with PRAAT. Glot Int 2001; 5: 341–347.

  22. Delorme A, Makeig S, EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J. Neurosci. Methods 2004, 134: 9–21.

  23. Jung T, Humphriesl C, T. Lee T, Makeig S. Extended ICA Removes Artifacts from Electroencephalographic Recordings. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 1998; 10: 894–900.

  24. Vigário RN, Extraction of ocular artefacts from EEG using independent component analysis. Electroencephalogr. Clin Neurophysiol 1997; 103: 395–404.

  25. Hyvärinen A, Oja E. Independent component analysis: algorithms and applications. Neural Networks 2000; 13: 411–430.

  26. Bell AJ, TJ Sejnowski. An information-maximisation approach to blind separation and blind deconvolution. Tech Rep 1989; 1034: 1004–1034.

  27. Tremblay KL, Kalstein L, Billings CJ, Souza PE, Consonant-Vowel Transitions. Tren Amplif 2006; 10: 155–162.

  28. Purdy SC, Kelly AS. Cortical auditory evoked potential testing in infants and young children 2001; 11: 1–8.

  29. Fitzroy AB, Krizman J, Tierney A, Agouridou M, Elmer S, Longitudinal maturation of auditory cortical function during adolescence. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9:1–13.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com