Literature DB >> 32977200

Sex differences in subcortical auditory processing only partially explain higher prevalence of language disorders in males.

Jennifer Krizman1, Silvia Bonacina1, Nina Kraus2.   

Abstract

Males and females differ in their subcortical evoked responses to sound. For many evoked response measures, the sex difference is driven by a faster developmental decline of auditory processing in males. Using the frequency-following response (FFR), an evoked potential that reflects predominately midbrain processing of stimulus features, sex differences were identified in the response to the temporal envelope of speech. The pattern of later and smaller responses in males versus females is consistent with two of the three response features that track with language development and reading abilities. Therefore, here we analyzed subcortical response consistency, the third distinguishing feature of language ability. Furthermore, though the envelope is primarily a low-frequency response, the greatest sex differences were observed in harmonics encoding. To better understand these sex differences, we extended these findings to the temporal fine structure response, which is biased to high-frequency information. Using the same 516 participants as previously reported (Krizman et al., 2019), we analyzed the effect of sex across development on response consistency and the encoding of temporal fine structure, as indexed by the subtracted frequency-following response. We found that while males and females did not differ on response consistency, there was an effect of age on this measure. Moreover, while males still showed a faster decline in harmonic encoding, the magnitude and breadth of the sex differences were smaller (accounting for 2% variance) in the temporal fine structure response compared to the envelope response. These results suggest that sex differences are distinct, at least in part, from the differences that underlie language abilities and that developmental sex differences reflect subcortical auditory processing differences of both the temporal envelope and fine structure of sounds.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory midbrain; Frequency-following response; Maturation; Sex differences

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32977200      PMCID: PMC7688567          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2020.108075

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  32 in total

Review 1.  The human auditory system: a timeline of development.

Authors:  Jean K Moore; Fred H Linthicum
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.117

2.  Gender differences in cochlear response time: an explanation for gender amplitude differences in the unmasked auditory brain-stem response.

Authors:  M Don; C W Ponton; J J Eggermont; A Masuda
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Do more boys than girls have reading problems?

Authors:  Kevin Wheldall; Lisa Limbrick
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2010-04-07

4.  Sex differences in auditory subcortical function.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Erika Skoe; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 3.708

5.  Sex differences in hearing: Probing the role of estrogen signaling.

Authors:  Benjamin Z Shuster; Didier A Depireux; Jessica A Mong; Ronna Hertzano
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 1.840

6.  Unstable representation of sound: a biological marker of dyslexia.

Authors:  Jane Hornickel; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 6.167

7.  Stability and plasticity of auditory brainstem function across the lifespan.

Authors:  Erika Skoe; Jennifer Krizman; Samira Anderson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2013-12-22       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Sexual dimorphism and development of the human cochlea. Computer 3-D measurement.

Authors:  H Sato; I Sando; H Takahashi
Journal:  Acta Otolaryngol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.494

9.  Analyzing the FFR: A tutorial for decoding the richness of auditory function.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.208

10.  Variation in the Hearing Threshold in Women during the Menstrual Cycle.

Authors:  Dayse da Silva Souza; Brunna Luckwu; Wagner Teobaldo Lopes de Andrade; Luciane Spinelli de Figueiredo Pessoa; João Agnaldo do Nascimento; Marine Raquel Diniz da Rosa
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-17
View more
  3 in total

1.  Non-stimulus-evoked activity as a measure of neural noise in the frequency-following response.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Silvia Bonacina; Rembrandt Otto-Meyer; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.987

2.  Sex differences in auditory processing vary across estrous cycle.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Elena K Rotondo; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus; Kasia M Bieszczad
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Athleticism and sex impact neural processing of sound.

Authors:  Jennifer Krizman; Silvia Bonacina; Danielle Colegrove; Rembrandt Otto-Meyer; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-07       Impact factor: 4.996

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.