Effects of Stimuli and Contralateral Noise Levels on Auditory Cortical Potentials Recorded in School-age Children

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Date 2025 Jan 22

PMID 39841711

Authors

Thalita Ubiali

Camila Colussi Madruga-Rimoli

Thais Antonelli Diniz-Hein

Milaine Dominici Sanfins

Bruno Sanches Masiero

Maria Francisca Colella-Santos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Objective: One of the functions attributed to the auditory efferent system is related to the processing of acoustic stimuli in noise backgrounds. However, clinical implications and the neurophysiological mechanisms of this system are not yet understood, especially on higher regions of the central nervous system. Only a few researchers studied the effects of noise on cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP), but the lack of studies in this area and the contradictory results, especially in children, point to the need to investigate different protocols and parameters that could allow the study of top-down activity in humans. For this reason, the aim of this study was to analyze the effect of varying levels of contralateral noise on efferent activity in children by recording CAEPs with tone burst stimuli. Additionally, we aimed at verifying the effects of contralateral noise on cortical processing of speech stimuli.

Methods: Monaural CAEPs were recorded using tone burst stimuli in quiet and with contralateral white noise at 60 dB and at 70 dB in 65 typically developing school-aged children (experiment 1), and using speech stimuli with contralateral white noise at 60 dB in 41 children (experiment 2).

Results: In experiment 1, noise induced changes were observed only for P1 and P300 components. P1 latency was prolonged at both noise level conditions, P300 latency was prolonged only in the condition with noise at 70 dB, and P300 amplitude was reduced only in the condition with noise at 60 dB. In experiment 2, noise induced latency delays were observed on P1, P2, N2, and P300 components and amplitude reduction was observed only for N1.

Conclusion: The effects of noise stimulation were observed on all CAEP components elicited by speech, but the same was not observed in the experiment with tone bursts. The study of noise effects on CAEPs can provide electrophysiological evidence on how difficult listening situations affect sound discrimination and stimulus evaluation at thalamocortical regions.

References

Tokgoz-Yilmaz S, Kose S, Turkyilmaz M, Atay G . The role of the medial olivocochlear system in the complaints of understanding speech in noisy environments by individuals with normal hearing. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2013; 40(6):521-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2013.04.003. View

Leon A, Elgueda D, Silva M, Hamame C, Delano P . Auditory cortex basal activity modulates cochlear responses in chinchillas. PLoS One. 2012; 7(4):e36203. PMC: 3340362. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036203. View

Whiting K, Martin B, Stapells D . The effects of broadband noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. Ear Hear. 1998; 19(3):218-31. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199806000-00005. View

Billings C, Grush L . Signal type and signal-to-noise ratio interact to affect cortical auditory evoked potentials. J Acoust Soc Am. 2016; 140(2):EL221. PMC: 5848827. DOI: 10.1121/1.4959600. View

Terreros G, Delano P . Corticofugal modulation of peripheral auditory responses. Front Syst Neurosci. 2015; 9:134. PMC: 4588004. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2015.00134. View

de Boer J, Thornton A, Krumbholz K . What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing?. J Neurophysiol. 2011; 107(5):1301-12. PMC: 3311680. DOI: 10.1152/jn.00222.2011. View

Xiao Z, Suga N . Modulation of cochlear hair cells by the auditory cortex in the mustached bat. Nat Neurosci. 2001; 5(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1038/nn786. View

Woodman G . A brief introduction to the use of event-related potentials in studies of perception and attention. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010; 72(8):2031-46. PMC: 3816929. DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.8.2031. View

Zhang X, Li X, Chen J, Gong Q . Background Suppression and its Relation to Foreground Processing of Speech Versus Non-speech Streams. Neuroscience. 2018; 373:60-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.01.009. View

10.

Jager K, Kossl M . Corticofugal Modulation of DPOAEs in Gerbils. Hear Res. 2015; 332:61-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.11.008. View

11.

Anderson S, Kraus N . Sensory-cognitive interaction in the neural encoding of speech in noise: a review. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011; 21(9):575-85. PMC: 3075209. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.21.9.3. View

12.

Rabbitt R, Brownell W . Efferent modulation of hair cell function. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 19(5):376-81. PMC: 3343276. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32834a5be1. View

13.

Massa C, Rabelo C, Matas C, Schochat E, Samelli A . P300 with verbal and nonverbal stimuli in normal hearing adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 77(6):686-90. PMC: 9443768. View

14.

Swink S, Stuart A . Auditory long latency responses to tonal and speech stimuli. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011; 55(2):447-59. DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0364). View

15.

Ubiali T, Sanfins M, Borges L, Colella-Santos M . Contralateral Noise Stimulation Delays P300 Latency in School-Aged Children. PLoS One. 2016; 11(2):e0148360. PMC: 4744065. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148360. View

16.

Schochat E, Matas C, Samelli A, Carvallo R . From otoacoustic emission to late auditory potentials P300: the inhibitory effect. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2012; 72(3):296-308. DOI: 10.55782/ane-2012-1902. View

17.

Perrot X, Ryvlin P, Isnard J, Guenot M, Catenoix H, Fischer C . Evidence for corticofugal modulation of peripheral auditory activity in humans. Cereb Cortex. 2005; 16(7):941-8. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhj035. View

18.

Gustafson S, Billings C, Hornsby B, Key A . Effect of competing noise on cortical auditory evoked potentials elicited by speech sounds in 7- to 25-year-old listeners. Hear Res. 2019; 373:103-112. PMC: 6359968. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2019.01.004. View

19.

Billings C, Bennett K, Molis M, Leek M . Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear. 2010; 32(1):53-60. PMC: 3010248. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181ec5c46. View

20.

Guinan Jr J . Cochlear efferent innervation and function. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010; 18(5):447-53. PMC: 3075443. DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0b013e32833e05d6. View