CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 21(02): 134-139
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583527
Original Research
Thieme-Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Test-Retest of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (P300) with Pure Tone and Speech Stimuli

Ana Paula Perez
1   Department of Phonoaudiology, Escola Paulista de Medicina - UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
2   Department of Phonoaudiology Specialization, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Nova Friburgo, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
Karin Ziliotto
1   Department of Phonoaudiology, Escola Paulista de Medicina - UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
Liliane Desgualdo Pereira
1   Department of Phonoaudiology, Escola Paulista de Medicina - UNIFESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

16 March 2016

28 March 2016

Publication Date:
26 April 2016 (online)


Introduction Long latency auditory evoked potentials, especially P300, have been used for clinical evaluation of mental processing. Many factors can interfere with Auditory Evoked Potential - P300 results, suggesting large intra and inter-subject variations.

Objective The objective of the study was to identify the reliability of P3 components (latency and amplitude) over 4–6 weeks and the most stable auditory stimulus with the best test-retest agreement.

Methods Ten normal-hearing women participated in the study. Only subjects without auditory processing problems were included. To determine the P3 components, we elicited long latency auditory evoked potential (P300) by pure tone and speech stimuli, and retested after 4–6 weeks using the same parameters. We identified P300 latency and amplitude by waveform subtraction.

Results We found lower coefficient of variation values in latency than in amplitude, with less variability analysis when speech stimulus was used. There was no significant correlation in latency measures between pure tone and speech stimuli, and sessions. There was a significant intrasubject correlation between measures of latency and amplitude.

Conclusion These findings show that amplitude responses are more robust for the speech stimulus when compared with its pure tone counterpart. The P300 indicated stability for latency and amplitude measures when the test-retest was applied. Reliability was higher for amplitude than for latency, with better agreement when the pure tone stimulus was used. However, further research with speech stimulus is needed to clarify how these stimuli are processed by the nervous system.

  • References

  • 1 Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 1965; 150 (3700): 1187-1188
  • 2 Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. Neuro-Audiology: Case Studies. San Diego: Singular Publishing Company; 1994: 20-21
  • 3 McPherson DL. Late potentials of the auditory system. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1996
  • 4 Hall JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. 3nd ed. Massachusetts (Boston): Allyn and Bacon; 1990
  • 5 Kraus N, McGee T. Potenciais auditivos de longa latência. In: Katz J. Tratado de audiologia clínica. São Paulo: Manole; 1999: 403-20
  • 6 Duarte JL, Alvarenga KdeF, Banhara MR, Melo AD, Sás RM, Costa Filho OA. P300-long-latency auditory evoked potential in normal hearing subjects: simultaneous recording value in Fz and Cz. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 75 (02) 231-236
  • 7 Squires NK, Squires KC, Hillyard SA. Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1975; 38 (04) 387-401
  • 8 Eggermont JJ. Electric and magnetic fields of synchronous neural activity. In: Burkard RF, Don M, Eggermont JJ. (Eds.). Auditory evoked potentials. Baltimore: Lippincott William & Wilkins; 2006: 2-21
  • 9 Polich J, Howard L, Starr A. P300 latency correlates with digit span. Psychophysiology 1983; 20 (06) 665-669
  • 10 Sklare DA, Lynn GE. Latency of the P3 event-related potential: normative aspects and within-subject variability. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1984; 59 (05) 420-424
  • 11 Polich J. Normal variation of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986; 65 (03) 236-240
  • 12 Kileny PR, Kripal JP. Test-retest variability of auditory event-related potentials. Ear Hear 1987; 8 (02) 110-114
  • 13 Segalowitz SJ, Barnes KL. The reliability of ERP components in the auditory oddball paradigm. Psychophysiology 1993; 30 (05) 451-459
  • 14 Kinoshita S, Maeda H, Nakamura J, Kodama E, Morita K. Reliability of the probability effect on event-related potentials during repeated testing. Kurume Med J 1995; 42 (04) 199-210
  • 15 Kinoshita S, Inoue M, Maeda H, Nakamura J, Morita K. Long-term patterns of change in ERPs across repeated measurements. Physiol Behav 1996; 60 (04) 1087-1092
  • 16 Sandman CA, Patterson JV. The auditory event-related potential is a stable and reliable measure in elderly subjects over a 3 year period. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111 (08) 1427-1437
  • 17 Walhovd KB, Fjell AM. One-year test-retest reliability of auditory ERPs in young and old adults. Int J Psychophysiol 2002; 46 (01) 29-40
  • 18 Matas CG, Hataiama NM, Gonçalves IC. Estabilidade dos potenciais evocados auditivos em indivíduos adultos com audição normal. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011; 16: 37-41
  • 19 Reis ACMB, Frizzo ACF, Lozano AC, Santos FR, Anastasio ART, Hyppolito MA. Variability of registration latency and amplitude of the auditory evoked potential long latency (P3) in the condition test and retest. Audiol. Communic Res 2014; 19 (03) 293-298
  • 20 Covington JW, Polich J. P300, stimulus intensity, and modality. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1996; 100 (06) 579-584
  • 21 Goodin DS, Squires KC, Henderson BH, Starr A. Age-related variations in evoked potentials to auditory stimuli in normal human subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1978; 44 (04) 447-458
  • 22 Polich J. P300 in clinical applications: meaning, method, and measurement. Am J EEG Technol 1991; 31 (03) 201-231
  • 23 Verleger R, Neukäter W, Kömpf D, Vieregge P. On the reasons for the delay of P3 latency in healthy elderly subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1991; 79 (06) 488-502
  • 24 Polich J, Ladish C, Burns T. Normal variation of P300 in children: age, memory span, and head size. Int J Psychophysiol 1990; 9 (03) 237-248
  • 25 Squires K, Goodin D, Starr A. Event-related potentials in development, aging and dementia. In: Lehman D, Callaway E. eds. Human evoked potentials. New York: Plenum Publishing Co; 1979
  • 26 Musiek FE. Probing brain function with acoustic stimuli. ASHA 1989; 31 (08) 100-106 , 55
  • 27 Machado CSS, Carvalho ACO, Silva PLG. Standard characterization of P300 in young adults. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009; 14 (01) 83-90
  • 28 Fleck KM, Polich J. P300 and the menstrual cycle. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 71 (02) 157-160
  • 29 Fagan PL, Church GT. Effect of the menstrual cycle on the auditory brainstem response. Audiology 1986; 25 (06) 321-328
  • 30 Howard R, Mason P, Taghavi E, Spears G. Brainstem auditory evoked responses (BAERs) during the menstrual cycle in women with and without premenstrual syndrome. Biol Psychiatry 1992; 32 (08) 682-690
  • 31 Jasper HH. Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. Eletroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 1958; 10: 370-375
  • 32 Vaughan Jr HG, Ritter W. The sources of auditory evoked responses recorded from the human scalp. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1970; 28 (04) 360-367
  • 33 Bartko JJ, Carpenter Jr WT. On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 1976; 163 (05) 307-317
  • 34 Schochat E, Matas CG, Samelli AG, Mamede Carvallo RM. From otoacoustic emission to late auditory potentials P300: the inhibitory effect. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Warsz) 2012; 72 (03) 296-308
  • 35 Polich J. Task difficulty, probability, and inter-stimulus interval as determinants of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1987; 68 (04) 311-320
  • 36 Kok A. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 2001; 38 (03) 557-577
  • 37 Lew HL, Slimp J, Price R, Massagli TL, Robinson LR. Comparison of speech-evoked v tone-evoked P300 response: implications for predicting outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 78 (04) 367-371
  • 38 Massa CG, Rabelo CM, Matas CG, Schochat E, Samelli AG. P300 with verbal and nonverbal stimuli in normal hearing adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77 (06) 686-690