Download PDF
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)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

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.

Keywords

event-related - potentials - auditory perception - reliability - evoked potentials
 

  • References

  • 1 Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 1965; 150 (3700): 1187-1188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Musiek FE, Baran JA, Pinheiro ML. Neuro-Audiology: Case Studies. San Diego: Singular Publishing Company; 1994: 20-21
    Google Scholar
  • 3 McPherson DL. Late potentials of the auditory system. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Hall JW. Handbook of auditory evoked responses. 3nd ed. Massachusetts (Boston): Allyn and Bacon; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kraus N, McGee T. Potenciais auditivos de longa latência. In: Katz J. Tratado de audiologia clínica. São Paulo: Manole; 1999: 403-20
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Polich J, Howard L, Starr A. P300 latency correlates with digit span. Psychophysiology 1983; 20 (06) 665-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Polich J. Normal variation of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1986; 65 (03) 236-240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kileny PR, Kripal JP. Test-retest variability of auditory event-related potentials. Ear Hear 1987; 8 (02) 110-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Segalowitz SJ, Barnes KL. The reliability of ERP components in the auditory oddball paradigm. Psychophysiology 1993; 30 (05) 451-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Covington JW, Polich J. P300, stimulus intensity, and modality. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1996; 100 (06) 579-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Polich J. P300 in clinical applications: meaning, method, and measurement. Am J EEG Technol 1991; 31 (03) 201-231
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Musiek FE. Probing brain function with acoustic stimuli. ASHA 1989; 31 (08) 100-106 , 55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Machado CSS, Carvalho ACO, Silva PLG. Standard characterization of P300 in young adults. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2009; 14 (01) 83-90
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fleck KM, Polich J. P300 and the menstrual cycle. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1988; 71 (02) 157-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fagan PL, Church GT. Effect of the menstrual cycle on the auditory brainstem response. Audiology 1986; 25 (06) 321-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jasper HH. Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography. Eletroenceph Clin Neurophysiol. 1958; 10: 370-375
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bartko JJ, Carpenter Jr WT. On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 1976; 163 (05) 307-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kok A. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology 2001; 38 (03) 557-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar