Download PDF
Semin Hear 2015; 36(04): 250-262
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564455
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Electrophysiologic Assessment of Auditory Training Benefits in Older Adults

Samira Anderson
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland
2   Program in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
,
Kimberly Jenkins
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Maryland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 October 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Older adults often exhibit speech perception deficits in difficult listening environments. At present, hearing aids or cochlear implants are the main options for therapeutic remediation; however, they only address audibility and do not compensate for central processing changes that may accompany aging and hearing loss or declines in cognitive function. It is unknown whether long-term hearing aid or cochlear implant use can restore changes in central encoding of temporal and spectral components of speech or improve cognitive function. Therefore, consideration should be given to auditory/cognitive training that targets auditory processing and cognitive declines, taking advantage of the plastic nature of the central auditory system. The demonstration of treatment efficacy is an important component of any training strategy. Electrophysiologic measures can be used to assess training-related benefits. This article will review the evidence for neuroplasticity in the auditory system and the use of evoked potentials to document treatment efficacy.

Keywords

Electrophysiology - frequency following response - auditory training - efficacy - plasticity
 

  • References

  • 1 Kaplan-Neeman R, Muchnik C, Hildesheimer M, Henkin Y. Hearing aid satisfaction and use in the advanced digital era. Laryngoscope 2012; 122 (9) 2029-2036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Humes LE, Ahlstrom JB, Bratt GW, Peek BF. Studies of hearing aid outcome measures in older adults: a comparison of technologies and an examination of individual differences. Semin Hear 2009; 30 (2) 112-128
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 2013; 300: 18-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Humes LE. The contributions of audibility and cognitive factors to the benefit provided by amplified speech to older adults. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (7) 590-603
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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) 1332-1343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Frisina DR, Frisina RD. Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res 1997; 106 (1-2) 95-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Goŕdon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. Temporal factors and speech recognition performance in young and elderly listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (6) 1276-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pascual-Leone A, Freitas C, Oberman L , et al. Characterizing brain cortical plasticity and network dynamics across the age-span in health and disease with TMS-EEG and TMS-fMRI. Brain Topogr 2011; 24 (3–4) 302-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Parbery-Clark A, Anderson S, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical experience offsets age-related delays in neural timing. Neurobiol Aging 2012; 33 (7) 1483.e1-1483.e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shannon RV, Zeng F-G, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995; 270 (5234) 303-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Rennies J, Verhey JL, Fastl H. Comparison of loudness models for time-varying sounds. Acta Acust United Acust 2010; 96 (2) 383-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fogerty D, Humes LE. The role of vowel and consonant fundamental frequency, envelope, and temporal fine structure cues to the intelligibility of words and sentences. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 131 (2) 1490-1501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fogerty D. Perceptual weighting of individual and concurrent cues for sentence intelligibility: frequency, envelope, and fine structure. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 129 (2) 977-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosen S. Temporal information in speech: acoustic, auditory and linguistic aspects. PhilosophTransact. Biol Sci 1992; 336 (1278) 367-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Moore BCJ. The role of temporal fine structure processing in pitch perception, masking, and speech perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired people. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2008; 9 (4) 399-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lorenzi C, Gilbert G, Carn H, Garnier S, Moore BCJ. Speech perception problems of the hearing impaired reflect inability to use temporal fine structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103 (49) 18866-18869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Training changes processing of speech cues in older adults with hearing loss. Front Syst Neurosci 2013; 7 (97) 97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kale S, Heinz MG. Envelope coding in auditory nerve fibers following noise-induced hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2010; 11 (4) 657-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhong Z, Henry KS, Heinz MG. Sensorineural hearing loss amplifies neural coding of envelope information in the central auditory system of chinchillas. Hear Res 2014; 309: 55-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Henry KS, Heinz MG. Diminished temporal coding with sensorineural hearing loss emerges in background noise. Nat Neurosci 2012; 15 (10) 1362-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Willott JF. Central physiological correlates of ageing and presbycusis in mice. Acta Otolaryngol 1991; 111 (s476): 153-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Felix II RA, Portfors CV. Excitatory, inhibitory and facilitatory frequency response areas in the inferior colliculus of hearing impaired mice. Hear Res 2007; 228 (1–2) 212-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Thai-Van H, Veuillet E, Norena A, Guiraud J, Collet L. Plasticity of tonotopic maps in humans: influence of hearing loss, hearing aids and cochlear implants. Acta Otolaryngol 2010; 130 (3) 333-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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 2002; 23 (6) 532-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gordon-Salant S, Yeni-Komshian G, Fitzgibbons P. The role of temporal cues in word identification by younger and older adults: effects of sentence context. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 124 (5) 3249-3260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fogerty D, Humes LE, Kewley-Port D. Auditory temporal-order processing of vowel sequences by young and elderly listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 127 (4) 2509-2520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Grose JH, Mamo SK. Processing of temporal fine structure as a function of age. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (6) 755-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fitzgibbons PJ, Gordon-Salant S. Age effects on duration discrimination with simple and complex stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 98 (6) 3140-3145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Horwitz AR, Ahlstrom JB, Dubno JR. Level-dependent changes in detection of temporal gaps in noise markers by adults with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130 (5) 2928-2938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Schmiedt RA, Mills JH, Boettcher FA. Age-related loss of activity of auditory-nerve fibers. J Neurophysiol 1996; 76 (4) 2799-2803
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sergeyenko Y, Lall K, Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Age-related cochlear synaptopathy: an early-onset contributor to auditory functional decline. J Neurosci 2013; 33 (34) 13686-13694
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Caspary DM, Ling L, Turner JG, Hughes LF. Inhibitory neurotransmission, plasticity and aging in the mammalian central auditory system. J Exp Biol 2008; 211 (Pt 11): 1781-1791
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Walton JP, Frisina RD, O'Neill WE. Age-related alteration in processing of temporal sound features in the auditory midbrain of the CBA mouse. J Neurosci 1998; 18 (7) 2764-2776
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (41) 14156-14164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Clinard CG, Tremblay KL. Aging degrades the neural encoding of simple and complex sounds in the human brainstem. J Am Acad Audiol 2013; 24 (7) 590-599 , quiz 643–644
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pichora-Fuller MK, Levitt H. Speech comprehension training and auditory and cognitive processing in older adults. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (2) 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Miller JD, Watson CS, Kewley-Port D, Sillings R, Mills WB, Burleson DF. SPATS: Speech Perception Assessment and Training System. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 122 (5) 3063
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Burk MH, Humes LE. Effects of long-term training on aided speech-recognition performance in noise in older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (3) 759-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Henderson Sabes J, Sweetow RW. Variables predicting outcomes on listening and communication enhancement (LACE) training. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (7) 374-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Fu Q-J, Galvin III JJ. Perceptual learning and auditory training in cochlear implant recipients. Trends Amplif 2007; 11 (3) 193-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (8) 538-558
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Boothroyd A. Adapting to changed hearing: the potential role of formal training. J Am Acad Audiol 2010; 21 (9) 601-611
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tremblay K, Kraus N, Carrell TD, McGee T. Central auditory system plasticity: generalization to novel stimuli following listening training. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102 (6) 3762-3773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Tremblay K, Kraus N, McGee T. The time course of auditory perceptual learning: neurophysiological changes during speech-sound training. Neuroreport 1998; 9 (16) 3557-3560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Watson CS. Time course of auditory perceptual learning. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 1980; 89 (5 Pt 2): 96-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Alain C, Campeanu S, Tremblay K. Changes in sensory evoked responses coincide with rapid improvement in speech identification performance. J Cogn Neurosci 2010; 22 (2) 392-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 McClaskey CL, Pisoni DB, Carrell TD. Transfer of training of a new linguistic contrast in voicing. Percept Psychophys 1983; 34 (4) 323-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Tremblay KL, Ross B, Inoue K, McClannahan K, Collet G. Is the auditory evoked P2 response a biomarker of learning?. Front Syst Neurosci 2014; 8: 28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 2010; 47 (2) 236-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Akhoun I, Moulin A, Jeanvoine A , et al. Speech auditory brainstem response (speech ABR) characteristics depending on recording conditions, and hearing status: an experimental parametric study. J Neurosci Methods 2008; 175 (2) 196-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Marsh JT, Worden FG. Sound evoked frequency-following responses in the central auditory pathway. Laryngoscope 1968; 78 (7) 1149-1163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (3) 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Test-retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children. Hear Res 2012; 284 (1–2) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N. Test-retest reliability of the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Clin Neurophysiol 2011; 122 (2) 346-355
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Skoe E, Kraus N. Hearing it again and again: on-line subcortical plasticity in humans. PLoS ONE 2010; 5 (10) e13645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Song JH, Skoe E, Wong PCM, Kraus N. Plasticity in the adult human auditory brainstem following short-term linguistic training. J Cogn Neurosci 2008; 20 (10) 1892-1902
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Bidelman GM, Swaminathan J. Experience-dependent neural representation of dynamic pitch in the brainstem. Neuroreport 2009; 20 (4) 408-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour J, Cariani P. Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 2005; 25 (1) 161-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Carcagno S, Plack CJ. Subcortical plasticity following perceptual learning in a pitch discrimination task. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2011; 12 (1) 89-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Pekkonen E, Rinne T, Näätänen R. Variability and replicability of the mismatch negativity. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995; 96 (6) 546-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Anderson S, Chandrasekaran B, Yi H-G, Kraus N. Cortical-evoked potentials reflect speech-in-noise perception in children. Eur J Neurosci 2010; 32 (8) 1407-1413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Banai K, Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Reading and subcortical auditory function. Cereb Cortex 2009; 19 (11) 2699-2707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bradlow AR, Kraus N, Hayes E. Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (1) 80-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Ziegler JC, Pech-Georgel C, George F, Lorenzi C. Speech-perception-in-noise deficits in dyslexia. Dev Sci 2009; 12 (5) 732-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Mishra J, de Villers-Sidani E, Merzenich M, Gazzaley A. Adaptive training diminishes distractibility in aging across species. Neuron 2014; 84 (5) 1091-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 de Villers-Sidani E, Alzghoul L, Zhou X, Simpson KL, Lin RCS, Merzenich MM. Recovery of functional and structural age-related changes in the rat primary auditory cortex with operant training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107 (31) 13900-13905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. Reversal of age-related neural timing delays with training. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110 (11) 4357-4362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (4 Pt 1): 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Woodcock RW, McGrew KS, Mather N. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 70 Gaab N, Paetzold M, Becker M, Walker MP, Schlaug G. The influence of sleep on auditory learning: a behavioral study. Neuroreport 2004; 15 (4) 731-734
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Alain C, Zhu KD, He Y, Ross B. Sleep-dependent neuroplastic changes during auditory perceptual learning. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2015; 118 (0) 133-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Atienza M, Cantero JL, Dominguez-Marin E. The time course of neural changes underlying auditory perceptual learning. Learn Mem 2002; 9 (3) 138-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Choi HJ, Kraus N. Partial maintenance of auditory-based cognitive training benefits in older adults. Neuropsychologia 2014; 62: 286-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Bavelier D, Green CS, Pouget A, Schrater P. Brain plasticity through the life span: learning to learn and action video games. Annu Rev Neurosci 2012; 35 (1) 391-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL , et al. Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature 2013; 501 (7465) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Whitton JP, Hancock KE, Polley DB. Immersive audiomotor game play enhances neural and perceptual salience of weak signals in noise. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014; 111 (25) E2606-E2615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar