» Articles » PMID: 36703999

Aging Alters Across-hemisphere Cortical Dynamics During Binaural Temporal Processing

Overview
Journal Front Neurosci
Date 2023 Jan 27
PMID 36703999
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Differences in the timing and intensity of sounds arriving at the two ears provide fundamental binaural cues that help us localize and segregate sounds in the environment. Neural encoding of these cues is commonly represented asymmetrically in the cortex with stronger activation in the hemisphere contralateral to the perceived spatial location. Although advancing age is known to degrade the perception of binaural cues, less is known about how the neural representation of such cues is impacted by age. Here, we use electroencephalography (EEG) to investigate age-related changes in the hemispheric distribution of interaural time difference (ITD) encoding based on cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and derived binaural interaction component (BIC) measures in ten younger and ten older normal-hearing adults. Sensor-level analyses of the CAEP and BIC showed age-related differences in global field power, where older listeners had significantly larger responses than younger for both binaural metrics. Source-level analyses showed hemispheric differences in auditory cortex activity for left and right lateralized stimuli in younger adults, consistent with a contralateral activation model for processing ITDs. Older adults, however, showed reduced hemispheric asymmetry across ITDs, despite having overall larger responses than younger adults. Further, when averaged across ITD condition to evaluate changes in cortical asymmetry over time, there was a significant shift in laterality corresponding to the peak components (P1, N1, P2) in the source waveform that also was affected by age. These novel results demonstrate across-hemisphere cortical dynamics during binaural temporal processing that are altered with advancing age.

Citing Articles

Asymmetries and hemispheric interaction in the auditory system of elderly people.

Angenstein N Front Neuroimaging. 2024; 2:1320989.

PMID: 38235106 PMC: 10791916. DOI: 10.3389/fnimg.2023.1320989.

References
1.
Lavoie B, Hine J, Thornton R . The choice of distracting task can affect the quality of auditory evoked potentials recorded for clinical assessment. Int J Audiol. 2008; 47(7):439-44. DOI: 10.1080/14992020802033109. View

2.
Salminen N, May P, Alku P, Tiitinen H . A population rate code of auditory space in the human cortex. PLoS One. 2009; 4(10):e7600. PMC: 2762079. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007600. View

3.
Hancock K, Noel V, Ryugo D, Delgutte B . Neural coding of interaural time differences with bilateral cochlear implants: effects of congenital deafness. J Neurosci. 2010; 30(42):14068-79. PMC: 3025489. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3213-10.2010. View

4.
Hu H, Dietz M . Comparison of Interaural Electrode Pairing Methods for Bilateral Cochlear Implants. Trends Hear. 2015; 19. PMC: 4771032. DOI: 10.1177/2331216515617143. View

5.
Salminen N, Tiitinen H, Yrttiaho S, May P . The neural code for interaural time difference in human auditory cortex. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010; 127(2):EL60-5. DOI: 10.1121/1.3290744. View