Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2019; 23(04): e396-e402
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692160
Original Research
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Frequency-Following Response with Speech Stimulus: Comparison between Two Methods of Stimulation

Taissane Rodrigues Sanguebuche 
1   Department of Phonoaudiology, Postgraduation Program in Communication Disorders, Center of Health Sciences, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria,, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
,
Luize Caroline Lima da Silva
2   Department of Phonoaudiology, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
,
Bruna Pias Peixe
2   Department of Phonoaudiology, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
,
Débora Durigon da Silva
2   Department of Phonoaudiology, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
,
Michele Vargas Garcia
2   Department of Phonoaudiology, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 April 2018

23 April 2019

Publication Date:
22 October 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction Frequency-following response with speech stimulus (FFR-speech) is a subcortical potential that satisfactorily evaluates the processing of verbal information. However, there still are differences in the literature regarding its analysis and stimulation protocol.

Objective To compare two stimulation protocols for the capture of FFR-speech, to identify the percentage of occurrence of the waves among them and to compare it with the specialized literature, as well as to describe the interpeaks of its waves.

Method Considering the eligibility criteria, the sample consisted of 30 normal-hearing adults, with no complaints of speech comprehension. All of them were submitted to a basic audiological evaluation, to brainstem auditory evoked potential with click stimulus, and to FFR-speech. In the latter, 2 types of stimulation were performed, 3 series of 1,000 sweeps, and 2 series of 3,000 sweeps, for subsequent analysis of the resulting wave, in which we tried to mark the peak V followed by valleys A, C, D, E, F, and O.

Results Differences in latency and interpeaks were not found between the protocols. In general, a higher occurrence of waves in the stimulation of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was observed, but only the A valley presented a significant difference. When the values of the waves were compared with the literature, the V and A waves showed fewer occurrences in the present study.

Conclusion The protocol of 2 series of 3,000 sweeps was better for FFR-speech in the studied equipment, considering the higher occurrence of waves, even though it is inferior to the specialized literature. Furthermore, it was possible to describe interpeak values and to observe no difference between the studied protocols

Keywords

hearing - electrophysiology - auditory evoked potentials - adult
 

  • References

  • 1 Møller AR, Jannetta P, Bennett M, Møller MB. Intracranially recorded responses from the human auditory nerve: new insights into the origin of brain stem evoked potentials (BSEPs). Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1981; 52 (01) 18-27
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Filippini R, Schochat E. Brainstem evoked auditory potentials with speech stimulus in the auditory processing disorder. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2009; 75 (03) 449-455
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Cebulla M, Shehata-Dieler W. ABR-based newborn hearing screening with MB11 BERAphone® using an optimized chirp for acoustical stimulation. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2012; 76 (04) 536-543
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 van den Berg E, Deiman C, van Straaten HL. MB11 BERAphone) hearing screening compared to ALGOportable in a Dutch NICU: a pilot study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 74 (10) 1189-1192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rocha CN, Filippini R, Moreira RR, Neves IF, Schochat E. Brainstem auditory evoked potential with speech stimulus. Pro Fono 2010; 22 (04) 479-484
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Almeida MG, Sena-Yoshinaga TA, Côrtes-Andrade IF. , et al. Auditory evoked potential of the brainstem with the CE-Chirp® stimulus at different intensities. Audiol Commun. 2014; 19: 2317-6431
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Curing PV, Raphaela N, Muniz F. , et al. Auditory evoked potential of bone stem brushing: an integrative review. Rev CEFAC 2015; 17: 635-647
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115 (09) 2021-2030
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kraus N, Skoe E, Parbery-Clark A, Ashley R. Experience-induced malleability in neural encoding of pitch, timbre, and timing. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1169: 543-557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Dhar S, Abel R, Hornickel J. , et al. Exploring the relationship between physiological measures of cochlear and brainstem function. Clin Neurophysiol 2009; 120 (05) 959-966
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Basu M, Krishnan A, Weber-Fox C. Brainstem correlates of temporal auditory processing in children with specific language impairment. Dev Sci 2010; 13 (01) 77-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rocha-Muniz CN, Filippini R, Neves-Lobo IF. , et al. Can speech-evoked Auditory Brainstem Response become a useful tool in clinical practice?. CoDAS 2016; 28 (01) 77-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Skoe E, Krizman J, Anderson S, Kraus N. Stability and plasticity of auditory brainstem function across the lifespan. Cereb Cortex 2015; 25 (06) 1415-1426
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Sanguebuche TR, Peixe BP, Bruno RS, Biaggio EPV, Garcia MV. Speech-evoked Brainstem Auditory Responses and Auditory Processing Skills: A Correlation in Adults with Hearing Loss. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22 (01) 38-44 . Doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603109
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Peixe BP, Silva DD, Biaggio EPV, Bruno RS, Sanguebuche TR, Garcia MV. Applicability of Evoked Auditory Brainstem Responses with Hearing Loss. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 22 (03) 239-244 . Doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1605341
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Weich TM, Tochetto TM, Seligman L. Brain trunk auditory evoked potentials of former drug users. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2012; 78 (05) 90-96
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Filippini R. Eficácia do treinamento auditivo por meio do potencial evocado para sons complexos nos transtornos de audição e linguagem [thesis]. Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo, SP, Brazil 2011
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Silva DD. Functionality of auditory pathway in brainstem level in young individuals with and without complaint of speech comprehension [dissertation] Federal University of Santa Maria, RS, Brazil 2016
    PubMed
  • 20 Akhoun I, Gallégo S, Moulin A. , et al. The temporal relationship between speech auditory brainstem responses and the acoustic pattern of the phoneme /ba/ in normal-hearing adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (04) 922-933
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rocha-Muniz CN, Befi-Lopes DM, Schochat E. Investigation of auditory processing disorder and language impairment using the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response. Hear Res 2012; 294 (1-2): 143-152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kouni SN, Giannopoulos S, Ziavra N, Koutsojannis C. Brainstem auditory evoked potentials with the use of acoustic clicks and complex verbal sounds in young adults with learning disabilities. Am J Otolaryngol 2013; 34 (06) 646-651
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Malayeri S, Lotfi Y, Moossavi SA, Rostami R, Faghihzadeh S. Brainstem response to speech and non-speech stimuli in children with learning problems. Hear Res 2014; 313: 75-82
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Leite LCR. The effect of Top-down and Bottom-up stimulation on auditory evoked potential of brain stem with complex stimulus [dissertation]. São Paulo: University of Medicine of São Paulo, SP, Brazil 2016; 156
  • 25 Sanfins MD, Borges LR, Ubiali T. , et al. Speech-evoked brainstem response in normal adolescent and children speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 90: 12-19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Sanfins MD, Borges LR, Ubiali T, Colella-Santos MF. Speech auditory brainstem response (speech ABR) in the differential diagnosis of scholastic difficulties. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2017; 83 (01) 112-116
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ahadi M, Pourbakht A, Jafari AH, Jalaie S. Effects of stimulus presentation mode and subcortical laterality in speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (04) 243-249
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Vander Werff KR, Burns KS. Brain stem responses to speech in younger and older adults. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (02) 168-180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar