Download PDF
Semin Hear 2022; 43(03): 137-148
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756160
Review Article

Auditory Evoked Potentials in Communication Disorders: An Overview of Past, Present, and Future

Akshay R. Maggu
1   Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This article provides a brief overview of auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) and their application in the areas of research and clinics within the field of communication disorders. The article begins with providing a historical perspective within the context of the key scientific developments that led to the emergence of numerous types of AEPs. Furthermore, the article discusses the different AEP techniques in the light of their feasibility in clinics. As AEPs, because of their versatility, find their use across disciplines, this article also discusses some of the research questions that are currently being addressed using AEP techniques in the field of communication disorders and beyond. At the end, this article summarizes the shortcomings of the existing AEP techniques and provides a general perspective toward the future directions. The article is aimed at a broad readership including (but not limited to) students, clinicians, and researchers. Overall, this article may act as a brief primer for the new AEP users, and as an overview of the progress in the field of AEPs along with future directions, for those who already use AEPs on a routine basis.

Keywords

auditory evoked potentials - electroencephalography - auditory brainstem response - machine learning - objective testing


Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Berger H. Über das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Arch Für Psychiatr Nervenkrankh 1929; 87 (01) 527-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Davis H. Electric response audiometry, with special reference to the vertex potentials. In: de Boer E, Connor WK, Davis H. et al., eds. Auditory System: Clinical and Special Topics. Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Springer; 1976: 85-103
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Picton TW. Human Auditory Evoked Potentials. Plural Publishing;; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Dawson GD. A summation technique for the detection of small evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1954; 6 (01) 65-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mendel MI, Goldstein R. Stability of the early components of the averaged electroencephalic response. J Speech Hear Res 1969; 12 (02) 351-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Geisler CD, Frishkopf LS, Rosenblith WA. Extracranial responses to acoustic clicks in man. Science 1958; 128 (3333): 1210-1211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Musiek F, Nagle S. The middle latency response: a review of findings in various central nervous system lesions. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (09) 855-867
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Davis H, Mast T, Yoshie N, Zerlin S. The slow response of the human cortex to auditory stimuli: recovery process. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1966; 21 (02) 105-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Williams HL, Tepas DI, Morlock Jr HC. Evoked responses to clicks and electroencephalographic stages of sleep in man. Science 1962; 138 (3541): 685-686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yoshie N, Ohashi T, Suzuki T. Non-surgical recording of auditory nerve action potentials in man. Laryngoscope 1967; 77 (01) 76-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Portmann M, Aran JM. Electro-cochleography. Laryngoscope 1971; 81 (06) 899-910
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sohmer H, Feinmesser M. Cochlear action potentials recorded from the external ear in man. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1967; 76 (02) 427-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jewett DL, Romano MN, Williston JS. Human auditory evoked potentials: possible brain stem components detected on the scalp. Science 1970; 167 (3924): 1517-1518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jewett DL, Williston JS. Auditory-evoked far fields averaged from the scalp of humans. Brain 1971; 94 (04) 681-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hecox K, Galambos R. Brain stem auditory evoked responses in human infants and adults. Arch Otolaryngol 1974; 99 (01) 30-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Starr A, Achor J. Auditory brain stem responses in neurological disease. Arch Neurol 1975; 32 (11) 761-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Picton TW, Hillyard SA. Human auditory evoked potentials. II. Effects of attention. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1974; 36 (02) 191-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Moushegian G, Rupert AL, Stillman RD. Laboratory note. Scalp-recorded early responses in man to frequencies in the speech range. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1973; 35 (06) 665-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Näätänen R, Gaillard AW, Mäntysalo S. Early selective-attention effect on evoked potential reinterpreted. Acta Psychol (Amst) 1978; 42 (04) 313-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Melcher JR, Kiang NY. Generators of the brainstem auditory evoked potential in cat. III: Identified cell populations. Hear Res 1996; 93 (1-2): 52-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Melcher JR, Knudson IM, Fullerton BC, Guinan Jr JJ, Norris BE, Kiang NY. Generators of the brainstem auditory evoked potential in cat. I. An experimental approach to their identification. Hear Res 1996; 93 (1-2): 1-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hood LJ. Clinical Applications of the Auditory Brainstem Response. Singular Publishing Group; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Sharma M, Bist SS, Kumar S. Age-related maturation of wave V latency of auditory brainstem response in children. J Audiol Otol 2016; 20 (02) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Young A, Cornejo J, Spinner A. Auditory brainstem response. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2022. . Accessed March 10, 2022 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK564321/
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Don M, Kwong B, Tanaka C, Brackmann D, Nelson R. The stacked ABR: a sensitive and specific screening tool for detecting small acoustic tumors. Audiol Neurotol 2005; 10 (05) 274-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chandan HS, Prabhu PP. Speech perception abilities in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder with preserved temporal synchrony. J Hear Sci 2013; 3 (02) 16-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (03) 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kumar U, Maggu AR, Mamatha NM. Effect of noise on BioMARK in individuals with learning disability. J India Inst Speech Hear 2012; 31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hornickel J, Zecker SG, Bradlow AR, Kraus N. Assistive listening devices drive neuroplasticity in children with dyslexia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012; 109 (41) 16731-16736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Russo N, Nicol T, Trommer B, Zecker S, Kraus N. Brainstem transcription of speech is disrupted in children with autism spectrum disorders. Dev Sci 2009; 12 (04) 557-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Russo NM, Hornickel J, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Biological changes in auditory function following training in children with autism spectrum disorders. Behav Brain Funct 2010; 6 (01) 60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Banai K, Kraus N. The dynamic brainstem: implications for CAPD. In: Current Controversies in Central Auditory Processing Disorder. San Diego: Plural Publishing Inc; 2008: 269-289
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Kraus N, Anderson S. Auditory processing disorder: biological basis and treatment efficacy. In: Le Prell CG, Lobarinas E, Popper AN, Fay RR. eds. Translational Research in Audiology, Neurotology, and the Hearing Sciences. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research. Springer International Publishing; 2016: 51-80
    Google Scholar
  • 34 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Kumar P, Singh NK. BioMARK as electrophysiological tool for assessing children at risk for (central) auditory processing disorders without reading deficits. Hear Res 2015; 324: 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 White-Schwoch T, Krizman J, McCracken K. et al. Baseline profiles of auditory, vestibular, and visual functions in youth tackle football players. Concussion 2020; 4 (04) CNC66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Santarelli R, Scimemi P, Monte ED, Arslan E. Cochlear microphonic potential recorded by transtympanic electrocochleography in normally-hearing and hearing-impaired ears. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2006; 26 (02) 78-95
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Durrant JD, Wang J, Ding DL, Salvi RJ. Are inner or outer hair cells the source of summating potentials recorded from the round window?. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 104 (01) 370-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Eggermont JJ. Electrocochleography. In: de Boer E, Connor WK, Davis H. et al., eds. Auditory System: Clinical and Special Topics. Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Springer; 1976: 625-705
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Ferraro JA, Tibbils RP. SP/AP area ratio in the diagnosis of Ménière's disease. Am J Audiol 1999; 8 (01) 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tanamati LF, Bevilacqua MC, Costa OA. Longitudinal study of the ECAP measured in children with cochlear implants. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2009; 75 (01) 90-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Gallégo S, Frachet B, Micheyl C, Truy E, Collet L. Cochlear implant performance and electrically-evoked auditory brain-stem response characteristics. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1998; 108 (06) 521-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Damarla VK, Manjula P. Application of ASSR in the hearing aid selection process. Aust N Z J Audiol 2007; 29 (02) 89-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Arehole S, Augustine LE, Simhadri R. Middle latency response in children with learning disabilities: preliminary findings. J Commun Disord 1995; 28 (01) 21-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Brown DD. The use of the middle latency response (MLR) for assessing low-frequency auditory thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 1982; 71 (Suppl. 01) S99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kraus N, Smith DI, Reed NL, Stein LK, Cartee C. Auditory middle latency responses in children: effects of age and diagnostic category. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1985; 62 (05) 343-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Schochat E, Musiek FE, Alonso R, Ogata J. Effect of auditory training on the middle latency response in children with (central) auditory processing disorder. Braz J Med Biol Res 2010; 43 (08) 777-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Swink S, Stuart A. Auditory long latency responses to tonal and speech stimuli. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2012; 55 (02) 447-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Regaçone SF, Gução ACB, Giacheti CM, Romero ACL, Frizzo ACF. Long latency auditory evoked potentials in students with specific learning disorders. Audiol Commun Res 2014; 19: 13-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Dorman MF, Sharma A, Gilley P, Martin K, Roland P. Central auditory development: evidence from CAEP measurements in children fit with cochlear implants. J Commun Disord 2007; 40 (04) 284-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Leite RA, Wertzner HF, Gonçalves IC, Magliaro FCL, Matas CG. Auditory evoked potentials: predicting speech therapy outcomes in children with phonological disorders. Clinics (São Paulo) 2014; 69 (03) 212-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Holopainen IE, Korpilahti P, Juottonen K, Lang H, Sillanpää M. Attenuated auditory event-related potential (mismatch negativity) in children with developmental dysphasia. Neuropediatrics 1997; 28 (05) 253-256
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Korpilahti P, Lang HA. Auditory ERP components and mismatch negativity in dysphasic children. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 91 (04) 256-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Kraus N, McGee TJ. Mismatch negativity in the assessment of central auditory function. Am J Audiol 1994; 3 (02) 39-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Bishop DVM. Using mismatch negativity to study central auditory processing in developmental language and literacy impairments: where are we, and where should we be going?. Psychol Bull 2007; 133 (04) 651-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Schochat E, Scheuer CI, Andrade ER. ABR and auditory P300 findings in children with ADHD. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 2002; 60 (3-B): 742-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Shi L, Chang Y, Li X, Aiken S, Liu L, Wang J. Cochlear synaptopathy and noise-induced hidden hearing loss. Neural Plast 2016; 2016: 6143164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Adding insult to injury: cochlear nerve degeneration after “temporary” noise-induced hearing loss. J Neurosci 2009; 29 (45) 14077-14085
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Liberman LD, Suzuki J, Liberman MC. Dynamics of cochlear synaptopathy after acoustic overexposure. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2015; 16 (02) 205-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Furman AC, Kujawa SG, Liberman MC. Noise-induced cochlear neuropathy is selective for fibers with low spontaneous rates. J Neurophysiol 2013; 110 (03) 577-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Bramhall NF. Use of the auditory brainstem response for assessment of cochlear synaptopathy in humans. J Acoust Soc Am 2021; 150 (06) 4440-4451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Plack CJ. Reliability and interrelations of seven proxy measures of cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 2019; 375: 34-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Barbee CM, James JA, Park JH. et al. Effectiveness of auditory measures for detecting hidden hearing loss and/or cochlear synaptopathy: a systematic review. Semin Hear 2018; 39 (02) 172-209
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Hickox AE, Larsen E, Heinz MG, Shinobu L, Whitton JP. Translational issues in cochlear synaptopathy. Hear Res 2017; 349: 164-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Guest H, Munro KJ, Prendergast G, Millman RE, Plack CJ. Impaired speech perception in noise with a normal audiogram: no evidence for cochlear synaptopathy and no relation to lifetime noise exposure. Hear Res 2018; 364: 142-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 2016; 11 (09) e0162726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Prendergast G, Tu W, Guest H. et al. Supra-threshold auditory brainstem response amplitudes in humans: test-retest reliability, electrode montage and noise exposure. Hear Res 2018; 364: 38-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Alonso R, Schochat E. The efficacy of formal auditory training in children with (central) auditory processing disorder: behavioral and electrophysiological evaluation. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2009; 75 (05) 726-732
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Viola FC, De Vos M, Hine J. et al. Semi-automatic attenuation of cochlear implant artifacts for the evaluation of late auditory evoked potentials. Hear Res 2012; 284 (1-2): 6-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Kim K, Punte AK, Mertens G. et al. A novel method for device-related electroencephalography artifact suppression to explore cochlear implant-related cortical changes in single-sided deafness. J Neurosci Methods 2015; 255: 22-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Miller S, Zhang Y. Validation of the cochlear implant artifact correction tool for auditory electrophysiology. Neurosci Lett 2014; 577: 51-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Van Den Abbeele T, Crozat-Teissier N, Noel-Petroff N, Viala P, Frachet B, Narcy P. Neural plasticity of the auditory pathway after cochlear implantation in children. Cochlear Implants Int 2005; 6 (1, Suppl 1): 56-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Kral A, Tillein J. Brain plasticity under cochlear implant stimulation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2006; 64: 89-108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Kileny PR. Evoked potentials in the management of patients with cochlear implants: research and clinical applications. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (2, Suppl): 124S-127S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Chonchaiya W, Tardif T, Mai X. et al. Developmental trends in auditory processing can provide early predictions of language acquisition in young infants. Dev Sci 2013; 16 (02) 159-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Maggu AR, Wong PC, Antoniou M, Bones O, Liu H, Wong FC. Effects of combination of linguistic and musical pitch experience on subcortical pitch encoding. J Neurolinguist 2018; 47: 145-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Maggu AR, Zong W, Law V, Wong PC. Learning two tone languages enhances the brainstem encoding of lexical tones. Proc Interspeech 2018; 1437-1441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Maggu AR, Liu F, Antoniou M, Wong PCM. Neural correlates of indicators of sound change in Cantonese: evidence from cortical and subcortical processes. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Maggu AR, Lau JCY, Waye MMY, Wong PCM. Combination of absolute pitch and tone language experience enhances lexical tone perception. Sci Rep 2021; 11 (01) 1485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Wong PCM, Skoe E, Russo NM, Dees T, Kraus N. Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nat Neurosci 2007; 10 (04) 420-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Novitskiy N, Maggu AR, Lai CM. et al. Early development of neural speech encoding depends on age but not native language status: evidence from lexical tone. Neurobiol Lang 2022; 3 (01) 67-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Suresh CH. Cortical pitch response components show differential sensitivity to native and nonnative pitch contours. Brain Lang 2014; 138: 51-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Ananthakrishnan S, Vijayaraghavan V. Language experience enhances early cortical pitch-dependent responses. J Neurolinguist 2015; 33: 128-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Krishnan A, Gandour JT, Suresh CH. Pitch processing of dynamic lexical tones in the auditory cortex is influenced by sensory and extrasensory processes. Eur J Neurosci 2015; 41 (11) 1496-1504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Chandrasekaran B, Krishnan A, Gandour JT. Mismatch negativity to pitch contours is influenced by language experience. Brain Res 2007; 1128 (01) 148-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Shen G, Froud K. Electrophysiological correlates of categorical perception of lexical tones by English learners of Mandarin Chinese: an ERP study. Biling Lang Cogn 2019; 22 (02) 253-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Kutas M, Federmeier KD. Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annu Rev Psychol 2011; 62: 621-647
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Regel S, Meyer L, Gunter TC. Distinguishing neurocognitive processes reflected by P600 effects: evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations. PLoS One 2014; 9 (05) e96840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 de Wit E, Visser-Bochane MI, Steenbergen B, van Dijk P, van der Schans CP, Luinge MR. Characteristics of auditory processing disorders: a systematic review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2016; 59 (02) 384-413
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 de Wit E, van Dijk P, Hanekamp S. et al. Same or different: the overlap between children with auditory processing disorders and children with other developmental disorders: a systematic review. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (01) 1-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Dawes P, Bishop D. Auditory processing disorder in relation to developmental disorders of language, communication and attention: a review and critique. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2009; 44 (04) 440-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Dawes P, Bishop DV. Psychometric profile of children with auditory processing disorder and children with dyslexia. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95 (06) 432-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Maggu AR, Overath T. An objective approach toward understanding auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol 2021; 30 (03) 790-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Khalighinejad B, Cruzatto da Silva G, Mesgarani N. Dynamic encoding of acoustic features in neural responses to continuous speech. J Neurosci 2017; 37 (08) 2176-2185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Broderick MP, Anderson AJ, Di Liberto GM, Crosse MJ, Lalor EC. Electrophysiological correlates of semantic dissimilarity reflect the comprehension of natural, narrative speech. Curr Biol 2018; 28 (05) 803-809.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Di Liberto GM, Lalor EC. Indexing cortical entrainment to natural speech at the phonemic level: methodological considerations for applied research. Hear Res 2017; 348: 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Di Liberto GM, O'Sullivan JA, Lalor EC. Low-frequency cortical entrainment to speech reflects phoneme-level processing. Curr Biol 2015; 25 (19) 2457-2465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Wong PCM, Lai CM, Chan PHY. et al. Neural speech encoding in infancy predicts future language and communication difficulties. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2021; 30 (05) 2241-2250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Xie Z, Reetzke R, Chandrasekaran B. Machine learning approaches to analyze speech-evoked neurophysiological responses. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 587-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar