Late auditory evoked potentials to speech stimuli presented with different transducers in hearing children
Potencial evocado auditivo de longa latência para estímulo de fala apresentado com diferentes transdutores em crianças ouvintes
Raquel Sampaio Agostinho- Pesse; Katia de Freitas Alvarenga
Abstract
Purpose: to analyze, in a comparative manner, the influence of the transducer on the recordings of P1, N1 and P2 components elicited through speech stimulus, as to the latency and amplitude in hearing children.
Methods: the sample was comprised of 30 hearing children aged 4-12 yrs, both genders. The long latency auditory evoked potentials were researched by means of transducers, insertion phone and speakers, elicited through speech stimulus /da/ presented with interstimuli interval of 526ms, the intensity of 70dBNA and presentation rate of 1.9 stimuli per second. Whenever present, P1, N1 and P2 components were analyzed as to latency and amplitude.
Results: it was found a strong level of agreement between the researcher and the judge. There was no statistically significant difference when comparing the values of latency and amplitude of the P1, N1 and P2 components, when considering gender and ear, as well as the latency of components when considering the types of transducers. However, there was a statistically significant difference for the amplitude of the P1 and N1 components with greater amplitude for the speaker transducer.
Conclusion: the latency values of the P1, N1 and P2 components and P2 amplitude obtained with insertion phone may be used as normal reference independent of the transducer used for the recording of auditory evoked potentials of long latency.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: analisar, de forma comparativa, a influência do transdutor no registro dos componentes P1, N1 e P2 eliciados por estímulo de fala, quanto à latência e à amplitude, em crianças ouvintes.
Métodos: 30 crianças ouvintes de quatro a 12 anos de idade, de ambos os sexos. Os potenciais evocados auditivos de longa latência foram pesquisados por meio dos transdutores, fone de inserção e caixa acústica, eliciados por estímulo de fala /da/, sendo o intervalo interestímulos de 526ms, a intensidade de 70dBNA e a taxa de apresentação de 1,9 estímulos por segundo. Foram analisados os componentes P1, N1 e P2 quando presentes, quanto à latência e à amplitude.
Resultados: constatou-se um nível de concordância forte entre a pesquisadora e o juiz. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante ao comparar os valores de latência e amplitude dos componentes P1, N1 e P2, ao considerar sexo e orelha, assim como para a latência dos componentes quando analisado os tipos de transdutores. Entretanto, houve diferença estatisticamente significante para a amplitude dos componentes P1 e N1, com maior amplitude para o transdutor caixa acústica.
Conclusão: os valores de latência dos componentes P1, N1 e P2 e amplitude de P2 obtidos com fone de inserção podem ser utilizados como referência de normalidade independente do transdutor utilizado para a pesquisa dos potenciais evocados auditivos de longa latência.
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Sharma A, Nash AA, Dorman M. Cortical development, plasticity and re-organization in children with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord. July-Aug, 2009; 42(4): 272-9.
2. Woods DL, Clayworth CC, Knight RT, Simpson GV, Naeser MA. Generators of middle and long-latency auditory evoked potentials: implications for studies of patients with temporal lobe lesions. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Mar, 1987; 68(2): 132-48.
3. Knight RT, Hillyard SA, Woods DL, Neville HJ. The effects of frontal and temporal-parietal lesions on the auditory evoked potential in man. Electroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Oct, 1980; 50(1/2): 112-24.
4. Näätänen R, Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: A review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology. July, 1987; 24(4): 375-425.
5. Rif J, Hari R, Hämäläinen M, Sams M. Auditory attention affects two different areas in the human supratemporal cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Dec, 1991; 79(6): 464-72.
6. Woods DL, Knight RT, Scabini D. Anatomical substrates of auditory selective attention: behavioral and electrophysiological effects of posterior association cortex lesions. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. Dec, 1993; 1(4): 227-40.
7. Martin BA, Tremblay KL, Korczak P. Speech evoked potentials: from the laboratory to the clinic. Ear Hear. June, 2008; 29(3): 285-313.
8. Ventura LMP, Costa Filho AO, Alvarenga KF. Maturação do sistema auditivo central em crianças ouvintes normais. Pro Fono. Abr-Jun, 2009; 21(2): 101-6.
9. Johnson CDC, Benson PV, Seaton JB. Educational audiology handbook. In: ______. Assessment practices. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1997. p. 49-372.
10. Lloyd LL, Kaplan H. Audiometric interpretation: a manual o basic audiometry. University Park Press: Baltimore; 1978. P. 16-7, 94.
11. Northen JL, Downs MP. Hearing in children. 3ª.ed. Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore; 1984. P. 89.
12. Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol, 1970;Oct;92(4):311-24
13. Gelfand SA. The contralateral acoustic reflex threshold. In: Silman S. The acoustic reflex: basic principles and clinical aplications. Academic Press: Orlando, Florida; 1984. P. 137-86.
14. Jerger S, Jerger J. Alterações auditivas: um manual para avaliação clínica. Atheneu: São Paulo; 1989. p. 102.
15. Ventura LMP. Maturação do sistema auditivo central em crianças ouvintes normais: potenciais evocados auditivos de longa latência. [dissertação]. Bauru (SP): Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru. Universidade de São Paulo; 2008.
16. Banhara MR. Potencial cognitivo- P300 evocado por estimulo de fala em usuarios de implante coclear multicanal. [dissertacao]. Sao Paulo (SP): Universidade de Sao Paulo. Fisiopatologia Experimental; 2007.
17. Houston WJB. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am. J. Orthod. May, 1983; 83(5): 382-90.
18. Digeser FM, Wohlberedt T, Hoppe U. Contribution of spectrotemporal features on auditory event-related potentials elicited by consonant- vowel syllables. Ear Hear. 2009; 30(6): 704-12.
19. Ohlrich ES, Barnet AB, Weiss IP, Shanks BL. Auditory evoked potential development in early childhood: a longitudinal study. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Apr, 1978; 44(4): 411-23.
20. Tonnquist- Uhlen I, Borg E, Spens KE. Topography of auditory evoked long- latency potentials in normal children, with particular reference to the N1 component. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Jul, 1995; 95(1): 34-41.
21. Ponton CW, Don M, Eggermont JJ, Waring MD, Masuda A. Maturation of human cortical auditory function: differences between normal- hearing children and children with cochlear implants. Ear Hear. Oct, 1996; 17(5): 430-7.
22. Sharma A, Kraus N, McGee TJ, Nicol TG. Developmental changes in P1 and N1 central auditory responses elicited by consonant- vowel syllables. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Nov, 1997; 104(6): 540-5.
23. Albrecht R, Suchdoletz Wv, Uwer R. The development of auditory evoked dipole source activity from childhood to adult. Clin Neurophysiol. Dec, 2000; 111(12):2268-76.
24. Cunningham J, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Speech- evoked neurophysiologic responses in children with learning problems: development and behavioral correlates of perception. Ear Hear. Dec, 2000; 21(6): 554-68.
25. Ponton CW, Eggermont JJ, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: evidence from multi- channel evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. Feb, 2000; 111(2):220-36.
26. Ponton C, Eggermont JJ, Khosla D, Kwong B, Don M. Maturation of human central auditory system activity: separating auditory evoked potentials by dipole source modeling. Clin Neurophysiol. Mar, 2002; 113(3):407-20.
27. Kummer P, Burger M, Schucher M, Rosanowski F, Eysholdt U, Hoppe U. Cortical auditory evoked potentials to acoustic changes in speech stimuli in children. Folia Phoniatr Logop. Aug, 2007; 59(5):273-80.
28. Bishop DVM, Hardiman M, Uwer R, Suchdoletz Wv. Maturation of the long- latency auditory ERP: step function changes at start and end of adolescence. Dev Sci. Sep, 2007; 10(5):565-75.
29. Ohlrich ES, Barnet AB. Auditory evoked responses during the first of life. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Feb, 1972; 32(2):161-9.
30. Barnet AB. Auditory evoked potentials during sleep in normal children from ten days to three years of age. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Jul, 1975; 39(1):29-41.
31. Bruneau N, Roux S, Guérin P, Barthélémy C, Lelord G. Temporal prominence of auditory evoked potentials (N1 wave) in 4-8 year- old children. Psychophysiology. Jan, 1997; 34(1):32-8.
32. Pang EW, Taylor MJ. Tracking the development of the N1 from age 3 to adulthood: an examination of speech and non- speech stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol. Feb, 2000; 111(2):388-98.
33. Sharma A, Dorman MF, Spahr AJ. A sensitive period for the development of the central auditory system in children with cochlear implants: implications for age of implantation. Ear Hear. Dec, 2002; 23(6): 532-9.
34. Vaughan HGJr, Ritter W. The sources of auditory evoked responses recorded from the human scalp. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. Ireland. Apr, 1970; 28(4): 360-7.
Submetido em:
27/09/2011
Aceito em:
18/04/2012
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email