Literature DB >> 26631329

Speech auditory brainstem response (speech ABR) in the differential diagnosis of scholastic difficulties.

Milaine Dominici Sanfins1, Letícia Reis Borges2, Thalita Ubiali2, Maria Francisca Colella-Santos3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26631329      PMCID: PMC9444797          DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.05.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 1808-8686


× No keyword cloud information.

Introduction

Learning spoken and written language depends on the assimilation of acoustic elements and the representation of phonetic characteristics of a language. Auditory processing, phonological awareness, and auditory discrimination are factors that affect the learning of reading and writing, because they are directly related to receptive hearing. Researchers have associated the presence of learning disabilities with hearing deficits in children. After an acoustic stimulation, electrophysiological evaluation of hearing can establish an anatomical and functional correlation in the central auditory nervous system that occurs through the activation of several structures throughout the system. Thus, in cases of learning disabilities, an analysis of the integrity and function of the auditory pathways is recommended. Speech auditory brainstem response (Speech ABR) testing can be elicited by a wide variety of sound stimuli: click, pure tone, masked tone, and complex sounds (speech). Studies have documented the normal responses using the click stimuli in children with learning disabilities; however, recent studies suggest the presence of alterations in response to speech stimuli, due to the existence of subcortical deficits associated with learning disorders.5, 6, 7

Case report

The subjects selected for this study were individuals with scholastic difficulties with a discrepancy between ability and academic performance. The diagnosis was based on a long and detailed study carried out by a multidisciplinary team, consisting of a psychologist, speech therapist, educational psychologist, physical therapist, psychomotrician, neurologist, and psychiatrist of the Research Laboratory of Learning Disorders, Disabilities, and Attention Deficit Disorder of the Faculdade de Ciências Médicas (Laboratório de Pesquisa em Distúrbios, Dificuldades de Aprendizagem e Transtorno de Atenção da Faculdade de Ciências Médicas – DISAPRE) of the Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. The diagnosis was finalized after ruling out genetic, organic, psychological, and psychiatric disorders that could cause those alterations. The present study reports two male cases (10 and 11 years old) who were assessed for a Master Degree's dissertation. The parents/guardians were informed of the study goals and signed the free and informed consent form No. 431,184/2013. A basic audiological evaluation was performed and the results were within the normal range, bilaterally. At the behavioral assessment of auditory processing (AP), an alteration was identified in the auditory abilities of figure-ground for verbal sounds, temporal ordering, and temporal resolution (Table 1), whereas at the AP electrophysiological evaluation, the responses were within the normal range in the ABR (click) and long latency responses (LLR; Table 2) were observed. The results of transient otoacoustic emissions (TOAEs) and distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) were normal bilaterally.
Table 1

Assessment values of auditory processing.

ProceduresCase 1
Case 2
Right earLeft earRight earLeft ear
DD87.5%92.5%100%95%
FPT (naming)48.27%58.62%43.33%26.66%
GIN%71.66%58.33%73.33%65%
GIN4 ms8 ms5 ms6 ms
SSI (relation – 15 dB)70%50%60%30%
Speech in noise88%80%84%72%

DD, Dichotic Digits test; FPT, Frequency Pattern Test; GIN, gap in noise; GIN%, gap in noise (%); SSI, synthetic sentence identification test with ipsilateral competing message.

Table 2

Values of the performed hearing assessments.

ProceduresCase 1
Case 2
Right earLeft earProceduresRight ear
Mean of 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz5 dB5 dB10 dB5 dB
SRT (dB)5 dB5 dB10 dB5 dB
SRI (%)100%96%96%100%
TympanogramType AType AType AType A
Ipsilateral and contralateral acoustic reflexesPresentPresentPresentPresent
TOAEsPresentPresentPresentPresent
DPOAEsPresentPresentPresentPresent
APAlteredAlteredAlteredAltered
ABR (click)NormalNormalNormalNormal
ABR (speech)AlteredUnrealizedAlteredUnrealized
LLRNormalNormalNormalNormal

SRT, speech recognition threshold; SRI, speech recognition index; TOAEs, transient otoacoustic emissions; DPOAEs, distortion product otoacoustic emissions; AP, auditory processing; ABR, auditory brainstem response; LLR, long latency responses.

Assessment values of auditory processing. DD, Dichotic Digits test; FPT, Frequency Pattern Test; GIN, gap in noise; GIN%, gap in noise (%); SSI, synthetic sentence identification test with ipsilateral competing message. Values of the performed hearing assessments. SRT, speech recognition threshold; SRI, speech recognition index; TOAEs, transient otoacoustic emissions; DPOAEs, distortion product otoacoustic emissions; AP, auditory processing; ABR, auditory brainstem response; LLR, long latency responses. ABR with speech stimuli was carried out with the synthesized syllable /da/, at a rate of 10.9 stimuli per second, provided by the BioMARK™ software of the Biologic device. A total of 6000 stimuli were given in two bursts of 3000, and the analysis was performed on the sum of the tracing. The stimuli were applied through an insertion phone in the right ear at 80 SPL (sound pressure level), because of the known superiority of the left hemisphere for speech processing. The stimulus consisted of the consonant /d/ (transient portion – onset) and a short vowel /a/ (sustained portion – frequency following response). The C waveform represents the transition between consonant and vowel, whereas the O wave represents the end of the vowel (Fig. 1). After the collection, the latency and amplitude of the transient portion (V and A waves) and the VA slope (VA amplitude/VA duration) were analyzed using the normative BioMARK™ wave as the basis for analysis. In both cases, abnormal responses were observed in the latency values of the waves V, A, and VA slope (Figure 2, Figure 3).
Figure 1

Representation of electrophysiological response to synthesized syllable /da/. Personal file of the investigator of an assessment performed with BioMARK™ software.

Figure 2

Brainstem-evoked response audiometry with speech stimulus and altered responses. Researcher's data from a male patient (10 years old).

Figure 3

Auditory brainstem response (ABR) with speech stimulus and abnormal responses. Researcher's data from a male patient (11 years old).

Representation of electrophysiological response to synthesized syllable /da/. Personal file of the investigator of an assessment performed with BioMARK™ software. Brainstem-evoked response audiometry with speech stimulus and altered responses. Researcher's data from a male patient (10 years old). Auditory brainstem response (ABR) with speech stimulus and abnormal responses. Researcher's data from a male patient (11 years old).

Discussion

In the analysis of the results, ABR with click stimulus were normal in both cases, in agreement with studies in the literature that indicate that only the processes involved in encoding speech signals in the brainstem region are altered in children with learning disabilities. These results show that the ABR with click and speech stimuli differ in how they stimulate the auditory structures along the central auditory nervous system (CANS), as the different acoustic stimuli reflect distinct neural process.5, 7 In the analysis of ABR with speech stimuli, abnormalities were observed in both cases, with significantly prolonged absolute latency values of V and A waves, as well as of the VA slope. Studies support these findings and describe a difference between the V and A wave latency values in children with learning disabilities when compared to children with normal development. This suggests a rethinking of how speech sounds are encoded and the functional role of the structures responsible for generating these waves (the region of the lateral lemniscus and inferior colliculus).5, 6, 7 The findings of this study suggest the existence of functional impairment in speech processing in the brainstem region, identified by prolonged latencies of V and A waves and VA slope, suggesting that the physiological mechanisms are altered, even without a proven neurobiological abnormality in patients exhibiting scholastic difficulties. As a result of this deficit in speech perception, there is an impairment of the communication and language processes, with consequent degradation of linguistic and paralinguistic information that causes difficulties in academic skills. This can result in severe consequences in quality of life and social interactions and culminate in learning disorders. Thus, there is a negative impact on the processing of fast acoustic signals in the specialized cortical structures, which do not respond to the sound stimulus in a synchronous and organized fashion and thus render the interpretation and understanding of the meaning difficult for children with scholastic difficulties. Several abnormalities in sound processing can be observed in patients with learning disabilities. Thus different levels of the auditory trajectory should be investigated to establish a differential diagnosis. One way to evaluate the CANS is through behavioral tests; however, the evaluation is time-consuming and requires effective patient participation. For patients with learning difficulties, ABR with speech stimulus is indicated, since it is an objective, practical, and effective test that does not depend on the patient's response and is independent of attention; additionally, it provides an analysis of numerical measures that can be used as a predictor of the degree of the disorder. According to Chandrasekaran and Kraus, the analysis of absolute latency values for ABR with speech stimuli can help differentiate and establish different clinical pictures, and allow for an objective measure of subcortical speech processing. This analysis would be very important in cases of learning disabilities that include several other subgroups of disorders, including scholastic difficulties. Researchers stress that this procedure can be used to evaluate auditory function and provide additional information in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and auditory processing disorders. The present findings suggest that changes in the perception and processing of auditory information observed in children with scholastic difficulties appear to be the same as those seen in children with learning disabilities. Thus, the authors stress the importance of evaluating children with scholastic difficulties, considering that alterations in speech sound processing appear to be of crucial importance in the learning process. Knowing the magnitude of hearing alterations in these patients may suggest more aggressive actions for the prevention, detection, and treatment of this disorder.

Conclusion

Analysis of these two cases showed the value of using ABR with speech stimuli in the evaluation of children with scholastic difficulties, considering the abnormalities detected in this study. This procedure is objective, fast, and effective. It does not require the patient's conscious participation and provides numerical data that can demonstrate the CANS maturation and, therefore, can function as a biomarker of scholastic difficulties. The ABR study with speech stimuli is very promising. Further studies with more subjects, would be important to monitor and demonstrate these alterations. Additionally, longitudinal follow-up of these cases would be interesting to assess test accuracy and treatment effectiveness, as well as to investigate and monitor the consequences of impaired speech perception in cases of scholastic difficulties.

Funding

This study was funded by .

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  8 in total

1.  Is poor frequency modulation detection linked to literacy problems? A comparison of specific reading disability and mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.

Authors:  L F Halliday; D V M Bishop
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2005-12-02       Impact factor: 2.381

2.  Sensitivity, specificity and efficiency of speech-evoked ABR.

Authors:  Caroline Nunes Rocha-Muniz; Debora Maria Befi-Lopes; Eliane Schochat
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2014-09-28       Impact factor: 3.208

Review 3.  Central auditory processing disorder in school-aged children: a critical review.

Authors:  A T Cacace; D J McFarland
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  Rapid acoustic processing in the auditory brainstem is not related to cortical asymmetry for the syllable rate of speech.

Authors:  Daniel A Abrams; Trent Nicol; Steven Zecker; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 5.  Brain stem response to speech: a biological marker of auditory processing.

Authors:  Krista L Johnson; Trent G Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.570

Review 6.  Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial.

Authors:  Erika Skoe; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.570

7.  Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception.

Authors:  Jane Hornickel; Erika Skoe; Trent Nicol; Steven Zecker; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity.

Authors:  Bharath Chandrasekaran; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 4.016

  8 in total
  11 in total

Review 1.  An Analysis of The Parameters Used In Speech ABR Assessment Protocols.

Authors:  Milaine D Sanfins; Stavros Hatzopoulos; Caroline Donadon; Thais A Diniz; Leticia R Borges; Piotr H Skarzynski; Maria Francisca Colella-Santos
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.017

2.  Speech-evoked auditory brainstem response; electrophysiological evidence of upper brainstem facilitative role on sound lateralization in noise.

Authors:  Abdollah Moossavi; Yones Lotfi; Mohanna Javanbakht; Soghrat Faghihzadeh
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  The effect of child development on the components of the Frequency Following Response: Child development and the Frequency Following Response.

Authors:  Laís Ferreira; Julia Dalcin Pinto; Déborah Aurélio Temp; Eli Natáli Broman; Piotr H Skarzynski; Magdalena B Skarzynska; Denis Altieri De Oliveira Moraes; Milaine Dominici Sanfins; Eliara Pinto Vieira Biaggio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.752

4.  Applicability of Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses with Complex Stimuli in Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Bruna Pias Peixe; Débora Durigon da Silva; Eliara Pinto Vieira Biaggio; Rúbia Soares Bruno; Taissane Rodrigues Sanguebuche; Michele Vargas Garcia
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-09-12

5.  Long-range temporal correlation in Auditory Brainstem Responses to Spoken Syllable/da/.

Authors:  Marjan Mozaffarilegha; S M S Movahed
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation.

Authors:  Taissane Rodrigues Sanguebuche; Luize Caroline Lima da Silva; Bruna Pias Peixe; Débora Durigon da Silva; Michele Vargas Garcia
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-10-22

7.  Dysfunction of the Auditory Brainstem as a Neurophysiology Subtype of Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Authors:  Jierong Chen; Zhen Wei; Chun Liang; Binguang Liu; Jimin Guo; Xuejun Kong; Minshi Huang; Ziwen Peng; Guobin Wan
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Effect of Auditory Maturation on the Encoding of a Speech Syllable in the First Days of Life.

Authors:  Laís Ferreira; Piotr Henryk Skarzynski; Magdalena Beata Skarzynska; Milaine Dominici Sanfins; Eliara Pinto Vieira Biaggio
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-06-25

Review 9.  Parameters for Applying the Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential with Speech Stimulus: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Luísa Bello Gabriel; Luíza Silva Vernier; Maria Inês Dornelles da Costa Ferreira; Adriana Laybauer Silveira; Márcia Salgado Machado
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-08-28

10.  Gender differences in binaural speech-evoked auditory brainstem response: are they clinically significant?

Authors:  Bahram Jalaei; Mohd Hafiz Afifi Mohd Azmi; Mohd Normani Zakaria
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2018-05-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.