Cortical auditory temporal processing abilities in elderly listeners

  • Aseel Al-Meqbel Mail Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Health Sciences Center, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait
  • Catherine McMahon Linguistics Department, Faculty of Human Sciences, Macquarie University, The Hearing Cooperative Research Centre, Sydney, Australia
Keywords:
Temporal processing, voice-onset-time, speech-in-noise, amplitude-modulated, n1 latency, elderly

Abstract

Background and Aim: This study investigated whether objective temporal processing paradigms including voice-onset-time, speech-in-noise, and amplitude modulated-broad-band noise (AM-BBN) are sensitive to disrupted temporal processing in elderly listeners with normal hearing (age-related-temporal processing deficit).
Methods: We evaluated 15 adults aged 64–80 years using behavioural measures of temporal processing temporal modulation transfer function (TMTF) and speech perception. Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) were elicited by three temporal paradigms presented in the sound field at 65 dBSPL: (1) naturally produced stop consonant-vowel (CV) syllables /da/-/ta/ and /ba/-/pa/; (2) speech-in-noise stimuli using the speech sound /da/with varying signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs); and (3) 16 Hz amplitude-modulated (AM) BBN presented in two conditions: (i) alone (representing a temporally modulated stimulus) and (ii) following an unmodulated BBN (representing a temporal change in the stimulus) using four modulation depths.
Results: Findings demonstrated a statistically significant mean difference in n1 latency (p<0.05) between normally hearing elderly and young adult listeners in all paradigms. Compared with young adult participants, n1 latency of the CAEP was always prolonged for elderly participants.
Conclusion: The three developed temporal processing paradigms are sensitive to disrupted temporal processing in elderly participants, and n1 latency may serve as a reliable objective measure of the efficiency of auditory temporal processing. The aging process affects temporal representations of the acoustic stimulus and reduces the ability to detect temporal cues, evidenced by abnormal n1 latency.

References

1. Frisina DR, Frisina RD. Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res. 1997;106(1-2):95-104.
2. Strouse A, Ashmead DH, Ohde RN, Grantham DW. Temporal processing in the aging auditory system. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;104(4):2385-99.
3. Schneider BA, Daneman M, Murphy DR. Speech comprehension difficulties in older adults: cognitive slowing or age-related changes in hearing? Psychol Aging. 2005;20(2):261-71.
4. Moore BC, Peters RW, Glasberg BR. Detection of temporal gaps in sinusoids by elderly subjects with and without hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1992;92(4 Pt 1):1923-32.
5. Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller MK, Kowalchuk D, Lamb M. Gap detection and the precedence effect in young and old adults. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95(2):980-91.
6. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Aging and temporal discrimination in auditory sequences. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001;109(6):2955-63.
7. Schneider BA, Pichora-Fuller K. Age-related changes in temporal processing: implications for speech perception. Semin Hear. 2001;22(3):227-40.
8. Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Auditory temporal processing in elderly listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;7(3):183-9.
9. Schneider BA, Hamstra SJ. Gap detection thresholds as a function of tonal duration for younger and older listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(1):371-80.
10. Snell KB, Frisina DR. Relationships among age-related differences in gap detection and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000;107(3):1615-26.
11. Fitzgibbons PJ, Wightman FL. Gap detection in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 1982;72(3):761-5.
12. Lutman ME. Degradations in frequency and temporal resolution with age and their impact on speech identification. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;476:120-5; discussion 126.
13. Snell KB. Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am. 1997;101(4):2214-20.
14. Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Benson NJ, Hamstra SJ, Storzer E. Effects of age on detection of gaps in speech and nonspeech markers varying in duration and spectral symmetry. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(2):1143-55.
15. Heinrich A, Schneider B. Age-related changes in within- and between-channel gap detection using sinusoidal stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;119(4):2316-26.
16. Corso JF. Sensory processes and age effects in normal adults. J Gerontol. 1971;26(1):90-105.
17. Pearson JD, Morrell CH, Gordon-Salant S, Brant LJ, Metter EJ, Klein LL, et al. Gender differences in a longitudinal study of age-associated hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;97(2):1196-205.
18. Irwin RJ, Hinchcliff LK, Kemp S. Temporal acuity in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology. 1981;20(3):234-43.
19. Bacon SP, Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation transfer functions in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. Audiology. 1985;24 (2):117-34.
20. He NJ, Horwitz AR, Dubno JR, Mills JH. Psychometric functions for gab detection in noise measured from young and aged subjects. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999;106(2):966-78.
21. Takahashi GA, Bacon SP. Modulation detection, modulation masking, and speech understanding in noise in the elderly. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35(6):1410-21.
22. Wightman F, Allen P, Dolan T, Kistler D, Jamieson D. Temporal resolution in children. Child Dev. 1989;60(3):611-24.
23. Green DM. Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;87(6):2662-74.
24. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport. 2002;13(15):1865-70.
25. Tremblay KL, Piskosz M, Souza P. Effects of age and age-related hearing loss on the neural representation of speech cues. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;114(7):1332-43.
26. Cahart R, Jerger J. Preferred method for clinical determination of pure tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord. 1959;24:330-45.
27. Viemeister NF. Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am. 1979;66:1364-80.
28. Lorenzi C, Dumont A, Füllgrabe C. Use of temporal envelope cues by children with developmental dyslexia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(6):1367-79.
29. Levitt H. Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1970;49(2):Suppl 2:467-77.
30. Gilley PM, Sharma A, Dorman M, Martin K. Developmental changes in refractoriness of the cortical auditory evoked potential. Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;116(3):648-57.
31. Festen JM, Plomp R. Effects of fluctuating noise and interfering speech on the speech-reception threshold for impaired and normal hearing. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990;88(4):1725-36.
32. Pichora-Fuller MK, Souza PE. Effects of aging on auditory processing of speech. Int J Audiol. 2003;42 Suppl 2:2S11-6.
33. Van Tasell DJ, Soli SD, Kirby VM, Widin GP. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. J Acoust Soc Am. 1987;82(4):1152-61.
34. Onishi S, Davis H. Effects of duration and rise time of tone bursts on evoked V potentials. J Acoust Soc Am. 1968;44(2):582-91.
35. Michalewski HJ, Starr A, Nguyen TT, Kong YY, Zeng FG. Auditory temporal processing in normal-hearing individuals and patients with auditory neuropathy. Clin Neurophysiol. 2005;116(3):669-80.
36. Michalewski HJ, Starr A, Zeng FG, Dimitrijevic A. N100 cortical potentials accompanying disrupted auditory nerve activity in auditory neuropathy (AN): effects of signal intensity and continuous noise. Clin Neurophysiol. 2009;120(7):1352-63.
37. Zeng FG, Oba S, Garde S, Sininger Y, Starr A. Temporal and speech processing deficits in auditory neuropathy. Neuroreport. 1999;10(16):3429-35.
38. Zeng FG, Kong YY, Michalewski HJ, Starr A. Perceptual consequences of disrupted auditory nerve activity. J Neurophysiol. 2005;93(6):3050-63.
39. Mendelson JR, Ricketts C. Age-related temporal processing speed deterioration in auditory cortex. Hear Res. 2001;158(1-2):84-94.
Published
2015-10-04
How to Cite
1.
Al-Meqbel A, McMahon C. Cortical auditory temporal processing abilities in elderly listeners. Aud Vestib Res. 24(2):80-91.
Section
Research Article(s)