Efeito do mascaramento modulado em medidas eletrofisiológicas e comportamentais
Effect of modulated masking on electrophysiological and behavioral measures
Mônyka Ferreira Borges Rocha; Karina Paes Advíncula; Danielle Samara Bandeira Duarte; Pedro de Lemos Menezes
Resumo
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Purpose To analyze the Benefit of Modulated Masking (BMM) in electrophysiological and behavioral measurements in young and adult normal-hearing individuals.
Methods Observational and cross-sectional analytical study, with a final research sample consisted of 40 participants, 20 individuals aged 18 to 30 years (young adults) and 20 individuals aged 31 to 50 years (adults), to carry out behavioral assessment (Sentence recognition test in the presence of stable and modulated noise) and electrophysiological (Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential) for BMM investigation. The results were analyzed using the paired t-test and ANOVA for repeated measures, applied by the Bonferroni post-hoc test (p-value <0.05).
Results Less interference from modulated noise was identified in the latency and amplitude measurements of cortical components, generating a significant reduction in P1 latency and an increase in P2 amplitude in both groups of participants. Stable noise generated higher electrophysiological and behavioral thresholds compared to modulated noise. A greater magnitude of BMM was observed in the young-adult group.
Conclusion In both groups of participants, less interference from modulated noise was identified in the encoding time of the neural auditory response and in the process of neural discrimination of speech. Furthermore, behavioral and electrophysiological thresholds were typically higher in stable noise when compared to modulated noise, pointing to a correspondence between BMM measurements between hearing domains. The magnitude of the higher BMM in the young-adult group, especially in the electrophysiological domain, suggests a greater temporal resolution ability in younger individuals.
Keywords
Referencias
1 Romero ACL, Frizzo ACF, Chagas EFB, Isaac ML. Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2020;86(4):395-404.
2 Oliveira LS, Didoné DD, Durante AS. Automated cortical auditory evoked potentials threshold estimation in neonates. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringo. 2019;85(2):206-12.
3 Shafer VL, Yu YH, Wagner M. Maturation of cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to speech recorded from frontocentral and temporal sites: three months to eight years of age. Int J Psicofisiol. 2015;95(2):77-93.
4 Guimarães ACF, Santos JN, Rabelo ATV, Magalhães MCA. The influence of noise on verbal auditory temporal ordering ability. Rev CEFAC. 2015;17(1):209-15.
5 Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, da Costa MLG, Griz SMS. Age effects in temporal auditory processing: modulation masking release and forward masking effect. Audiol Commun Res. 2018;23:e1861.
6 Tanner AM, Spitzer ER, Hyzy JP, Grose JH. Masking release for speech in modulated maskers: electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Ear Hear. 2019;40(4):1009-15.
7 Middlebrooks JC. Masking release by combined spatial and masker-fluctuation effects in the open sound field. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(6):3362-75.
8 Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, Griz SMS. Effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech. Audiol Commun Res. 2013;18(4):238-44.
9 Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, Delhorne LA. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2010;128(1):342-59.
10 Bernstein JG, Summers V, Iyer N, Brungart DS. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(4):2676-89.
11 Zhang C, Lu L, Wu X, Li L. Attentional modulation of the early cortical representation of speech signals in informational or energetic masking. Brain Lang. 2014;135:85-95.
12 Maamor N, Billings CJ. Cortical signal-in-noise coding varies by noise type, signal-to-noise ratio, age, and hearing status. Neurosci Lett. 2017;636:258-64.
13 Rocha MFB, Menezes DC, Duarte DSB, Griz SMS, Frizzo ACF, Menezes PL, et al. Masking release in cortical auditory evoked potentials with speech stimulus. CoDAS. 2022;35(1):e20200334.
14 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-9.
15 Jerger J, Jerger S, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry. Normal and sensorineural ears. Arch Otolaryngol. 1972;96(6):513-23.
16 Jerger S, Jerger J. Hearing changes: a manual for clinical assessment. São Paulo: Atheneu; 1989.
17 WHO: World Health Organization. Basic ear and hearing care resource [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2020 [citado em 2023 Out 20]. Disponível em:
18 Bevilacqua MC, Banhara MR, Costa EA, Vignoly AB, Alvarenga KF. The Brazilian Portuguese hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol. 2008;47(6):364-5.
19 Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1971;49(2):467-77.
20 Stephens JDW, Holt LL. A standard set of American-English voiced stop-consonant stimuli from morphed natural speech. Speech Commun. 2011;53(6):877-88.
21 Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Educational International; 2010.
22 Pelaquim A, Sanfins MD, Fornazieri MA. Changes in auditory evoked potentials increase the chances of adults having central auditory processing disorder. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;28(1):e134-40.
23 Lunardelo PP, Simões HO, Zanchetta S. Differences and similarities in the long-latency auditory evoked potential recording of P1-N1 for different sound stimuli. Rev CEFAC. 2019;21(2):e18618.
24 Duarte DSB, Griz SMS, Rocha MFB, Britto DBLA, Menezes DC, Advíncula KP. The effect of noise on the amplitude and morphology of cortical auditory evoked potentials. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2022;88(3, Suppl 3):S59-65.
25 Melo Â, Biaggio EPV, Rechia IC, Sleifer P. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in full-term and preterm neonates. CoDAS. 2016;28(5):491-6.
26 Grose JH, Griz S, Pacífico FA, Advíncula KP, Menezes DC. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(4):274-81.
27 Frizzo ACF, Advíncula KP. Potenciais evocados auditivos de longa latência: conceitos e aplicações clínicas. In: Menezes PL, Andrade KCL, Frizzo ACF, Carnaúba ATL, Lins OG, editores. Tratado de eletrofisiologia para a audiologia. Ribeirão Preto: Book Toy; 2018. p. 139-50.
28 Durante AS, Wieselberg MB, Roque N, Carvalho S, Pucci B, Gudayol N, et al. Assessment of hearing threshold in adults with hearing loss using an automated system of cortical auditory evoked potential detection. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2017;83(2):147-54.
29 Van Dun B, Dillon H, Seeto M. Estimating hearing thresholds in hearing-impaired adults through objective detection of cortical auditory evoked potentials. J Am Acad Audiol. 2015;26(4):370-83.
30 Gifford RH, Bacon SP, Williams EJ. An examination of speech recognition in a modulated background and of forward masking in younger and older listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(4):857-64.
31 Grose JH, Menezes DC, Porter HL, Griz S. Masking period patterns and forward masking for speech-shaped noise: age-related effects. Ear Hear. 2016;37(1):48-54.
32 Martins QP, Vellozo FF, Faccin VA, Garcia MV. Temporal resolution in children: analysis of different tests. Distúrb Comun. 2023;29(4):727-33.
Submitted date:
19/01/2024
Accepted date:
29/07/2024
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email