Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials as Indicators of Hearing Aids Performance in Speech Perception

  • Mohammed G. Al-zidi Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia
  • Jayasree Santhosh Department of Computer Engineering School of Science and Engineering (SOSE) Manipal International University, Malaysia
  • Siew‐Cheok Ng Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  • Abdul Rauf A Bakar Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  • Ibrahim Amer Ibrahim Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Keywords: Cortical auditory evoked potentials, consonant vowels, hearing loss, sensorineural hearing loss, speech stimuli.

Abstract

Cortical auditory evoked potentials represent summation of neural activity in the auditory pathways in response to sounds. They provide an objective measure of the brain’s response to sound. For this reason, they are an effective tool for scientists and audiologists for investigating
auditory function in normal people and those with hearing loss. The main objective of this study is to determine what components among the P1, N1, P2, N2, or P3 are most beneficial in assessing the speech detection and discrimination abilities of adult sensorineural hearing loss population.
This study also intends to investigate whether changes in the amplitudes and latencies of these components occurring with sensorineural hearing loss and hearing aids differ in responses reflecting different stages of auditory processing. Auditory Potentials were recorded to /ba/ and
/da/ stimuli from two Malay adult groups. A control group of 12 right-handed having normal hearing and a group of 10 right-handed with sensorineural hearing loss. The results showed that P2 and P3 components had the most benefits from the use of hearing aids in the hearing loss subjects and therefore could be used in both clinical and research applications as a predictor and objective indicator of hearing aids performance in speech perception. The study also showed that the brain processes both stimuli in a different pattern for both the normal and the aided hearing loss subjects. The present study could provide more diagnostic information for clinicians and could also offer
better speech perception benefits for hearing-impaired individuals from their personal hearing aids. The findings also suggest that the aided hearing loss subjects, despite the benefits they get from the hearing aids, find it difficult to detect and discriminate the acoustic differences between the two speech stimuli.

Author Biographies

Mohammed G. Al-zidi, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Malaysia
Research assistant at Biomedical Engineeing Department
Jayasree Santhosh, Department of Computer Engineering School of Science and Engineering (SOSE) Manipal International University, Malaysia
Associate Professor – Department of Computer Engineering
Siew‐Cheok Ng, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Senior Lecturer, Department of Biomedical Engineering

References

Agung, K., Purdy, S. C., McMahon, C. M. & Newall, P. 2006. The use of cortical auditory

evoked potentials to evaluate neural encoding of speech sounds in adults. J Am Acad Audiol,

(8), 559- 572.

Alain, C., Roye, A. & Arnott, S. R. 2013. Middle-and long-latency auditory evoked potentials:

What are they telling us on central auditory disorders. Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology:

Disorders of Peripheral and Central Auditory Processing, 10, 177- 199.

Anderson, S., Parbery-Clark, A., White-Schwoch, T., Drehobl, S. & Kraus, N. 2013. Effects

of hearing loss on the subcortical representation of speech cues. The Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 133(5), 3030- 3038.

Association, A. S.-L.-H. 2005. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry.

Bertrand Delgutte, D. C., Frank Guenther, Jennifer Melcher, Joe Adams, Joseph Perkell,

Kenneth Hancock & M. Brown. 2005. Brain Mechanism for Hearing and Speech. MIT

OpenCourseWare.

Billings, C. J., Tremblay, K. L., Souza, P. E. & Binns, M. A. 2007. Effects of hearing aid

amplification and stimulus intensity on cortical auditory evoked potentials. Audiology and

Neurotology, 12(4), 234 -246.

Brant, L. J. & Fozard, J. L. 1990. Age changes in pure-tone hearing thresholds in a longitudinal

study of normal human aging. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(2), 813

-820.

Csepe, V. & Molnar, M. 1997. Towards the possible clinical application of the mismatch negativity

component of event-related potentials. Audiology and Neurotology, 2(5), 354- 369.

Dehaene-Lambertz, G. & Baillet, S. 1998. A phonological representation in the infant brain.

Neuroreport, 9(8), 1885 -1888.

Donchin, E., Ritter, W. & McCallum, W. C. 1978. Cognitive psychophysiology: The endogenous

components of the ERP. Event-related brain potentials in man, 349- 411.

Dorman, M. F. 1974. Auditory evoked potential correlates of speech sound discrimination.

Perception & Psychophysics, 15(2), 215 -220.

Durante, A. S., Wieselberg, M. B., Carvalho, S., Costa, N., Pucci, B., Gudayol, N. & Almeida,

K. d. 2014, Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential: evaluation of speech detection in adult hearing

aid users. Paper presented at the CoDAS.

Easwar, V., Glista, D., Purcell, D. W. & Scollie, S. D. 2012. Hearing aid processing changes tone

burst onset: effect on cortical auditory evoked potentials in individuals with normal audiometric

thresholds. American Journal of Audiology, 21(1), 82- 90.

Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. & McHugh, P. R. 1975. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method

for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research,

(3), 189 -198.

Kopsinis, Y. & McLaughlin, S. 2009. Development of EMD-based denoising methods inspired

by wavelet thresholding. Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 57(4), 1351- 1362.

Korczak, P. A., Kurtzberg, D. & Stapells, D. R. 2005. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss and

personal hearing AIDS on cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speechsound

processing. Ear Hear, 26(2), 165 -185.

Korczak, P. A. & Stapells, D. R. 2010. Effects of various articulatory features of speech on

cortical event-related potentials and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear and

hearing, 31(4), 491- 504.

Kraus, N., McGee, T., Carrell, T. D. & Sharma, A. 1995. Neurophysiologic bases of speech

discrimination. Ear and Hearing, 16(1), 19- 37.

Ladefoged, P. & Maddieson, I. 1998. The sounds of the world's languages. Language, 74(2),

-376.

Lee, C.-Y., Jaw, F.-S., Pan, S.-L., Lin, M.-Y. & Young, Y.-H. 2007. Auditory cortical evoked

potentials in tinnitus patients with normal audiological presentation. Journal of the Formosan

Medical Association, 106(12), 979- 985.

Martin, B. A., Sigal, A., Kurtzberg, D. & Stapells, D. R. 1997. The effects of decreased audibility

produced by high-pass noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds/ba/

and/da. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(3), 1585 -1599.

Näätänen, R. 1992. Attention and brain function: Psychology Press.

Näätänen, R. 1995. The mismatch negativity: a powerful tool for cognitive neuroscience. Ear and

Hearing, 16(1), 6- 18.

Näätänen, R. & Picton, T. 1987. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound:

a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology, 24(4), 375 -425.

Oates, P. A., Kurtzberg, D. & Stapells, D. R. 2002. Effects of sensorineural hearing loss on

cortical event-related potential and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear,

(5), 399 -415. doi: 10.109701/.aud.0000034777.12562.31

Obleser, J., Elbert, T., Lahiri, A. & Eulitz, C. 2003. Cortical representation of vowels reflects

acoustic dissimilarity determined by formant frequencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(3),

- 213. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926- 64 10(02)00193 -3

Obleser, J., Eulitz, C., Lahiri, A. & Elbert, T. 2001. Gender differences in functional hemispheric

asymmetry during processing of vowels as reflected by the human brain magnetic response.

Neuroscience Letters, 314(3), 131 -134.

Obleser, J., Lahiri, A. & Eulitz, C. 2004. Magnetic brain response mirrors extraction of

phonological features from spoken vowels. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(1), 31- 39.

Ostroff, J. M., Martin, B. A. & Boothroyd, A. 1998. Cortical evoked response to acoustic change

within a syllable. Ear and Hearing, 19(4), 290- 297.

Picton, T. W., Alain, C., Otten, L., Ritter, W. & Achim, A. 2000. Mismatch negativity: different

water in the same river. Audiol Neurootol, 5(3- 4), 111139-. doi: 13875

Purdy, S. C., Kelly, A. S. & Thorne, P. R. 2001. Auditory evoked potentials as measures of

plasticity in humans. Audiology and Neurotology, 6(4), 211 -215.

Rapin, I. & Graziani, L. J. 1967. Auditory-evoked responses in normal, brain-damaged, and deaf

infants. Neurology, 17(9), 881 -894.

Ray, C. 2002. Mental retardation and/or developmental disabilities. Handbook of clinical audiology

(5th ed.). NewYork: Lippincott W| lliams & W| filkins.

Raz, I. & Noffsinger, D. 1985. Identification of synthetic, voiced stop-consonants by hearingimpaired

listeners. International journal of audiology, 24(6), 437 -448.

Ruffini, G., Dunne, S., Farrés, E., Cester, I., Watts, P. C., Ravi, S., . . . Marco-Pallares, J. 2007,

ENOBIO dry electrophysiology electrode; first human trial plus wireless electrode system.

Paper presented at the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2007. EMBS 2007. 29th

Annual International Conference of the IEEE.

Ruffini, G., Dunne, S., Farrés, E., Marco-Pallarés, J., Ray, C., Mendoza, E., . . . Grau, C.

A dry electrophysiology electrode using CNT arrays. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical,

(1), 34- 41.

of A Sound Foundation through Early Ampliciation, pp. 115–128,

Phonak, Stafa., Switzerland.

Sharma, A. & Dorman, M. F. 1999. Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical

perception of voice-onset time. J Acoust Soc Am, 106(2), 1078- 1083.

Sharma, A., Kraus, N., J. McGee, T. & Nicol, T. G. 1997. Developmental changes in P1 and

N1 central auditory responses elicited by consonant-vowel syllables. Electroencephalography

and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 104(6), 540 -545. doi: http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/S01686-00050)97(5597-

Stapells, D. R. 2002. Cortical event-related potentials to auditory stimuli. In I. J. Katz (Ed.),

Handbook of Clinical Audiology (pp. 378–406). Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.

Stelmachowicz, P. G., Lewis, D. E., Seewald, R. C. & Hawkins, D. B. 1990. Complex and

pure-tone signals in the evaluation of hearing-aid characteristics. J Speech Hear Res, 33(2),

- 385.

Tremblay, K., Friesen, L., Martin, B. & Wright, R. 2003. Test-retest reliability of cortical

evoked potentials using naturally produced speech sounds. Ear and Hearing, 24(3), 225 -232.

Wang, T., Lin, L., Zhang, A., Peng, X. & Zhan, C. a. A. 2013. EMD-based EEG signal

enhancement for auditory evoked potential recovery under high stimulus-rate paradigm.

Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 8(6), 858868-. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

bspc.2013.08.004

Wunderlich, J. L. & Cone-Wesson, B. K. 2001. Effects of stimulus frequency and complexity on

the mismatch negativity and other components of the cortical auditory-evoked potential. The

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(4), 1526- 1537.

Wunderlich, J. L. & Cone-Wesson, B. K. 2006. Maturation of CAEP in infants and

children: A review. Hearing Research, 212(1–2), 212- 223. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

heares.2005.11.008

Published
2018-01-29
Issue
Vol 5 No 4 (2017)
Section
Electrical Engineering