Auditory P300 in Noise in Younger and Older Adults

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Older adults often report difficulty hearing in background noise which is not completely attributable to peripheral hearing loss. Although age-related declines in cognition and hearing in background noise occur, the underlying age-related changes in processing of auditory stimuli in background noise has yet to be fully understood. The auditory P300 has the potential to elucidate the effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing of stimuli in background noise, but additional research is warranted.

Purpose:

The purpose of this study was to investigate age-related differences in cognitive processing of auditory stimuli by evoking the auditory P300 at multiple signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs).

Research Design:

A two-group, repeated measures study design was used.

Study Sample:

A convenience sample of 35 participants, 15 older adults (mean age of 66.4 yr) and 20 younger adults (mean age of 21.1 yr), participated in the study. All participants had negative otologic and neurological histories.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The auditory P300 was evoked using an oddball paradigm with 500 (frequent) and 1000 Hz (target) tonal stimuli in quiet and in the presence of background noise at +20, +10, and 0 SNRs. P300 amplitudes and latencies were measured in each condition for every participant. Repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted for the amplitude and latency measures of the P300 for each group.

Results:

Results from this study demonstrated P300 latencies were significantly longer in older adults in noise at the most challenging condition (0 SNR) compared with the quiet condition and between the +10 SNR and 0 SNR conditions. Although older adults had significantly longer P300 latencies compared with younger adults, no significant group by listening condition interaction existed. No significant P300 amplitude differences were found for group, noise, or group × listening condition interactions.

Conclusions:

Results provide evidence that auditory cortical processing, regardless of age, is poorer at more difficult SNRs. However, results also demonstrate that older adults perform significantly poorer than younger adults. This supports the notion that some degree of age-related decline in synchronous firing and rate of transmission of the auditory cortical neurons contributing to the auditory P300 exists. Studies are needed to further understand the impact of noise on auditory cortical processing across populations.

Portions of this article were presented at the American Speech, Language, Hearing Association Convention 2010 in Philadelphia, PA, the Global Perspective on CAPD conference in 2012 in Boston, MA, and AudiologyNOW! 2012, the annual convention of the American Academy of Audiology, in Boston, MA.

• REFERENCES

• Anderer P, Semlitsch HV, Saletu B. 1996; Multichannel auditory event-related brain potentials: effects of normal aging on the scalp distribution of N1, P2, N2 and P300 latencies and amplitudes. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 99 (05) 458-472
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson S, White-Schwoch T, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. 2013; A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hear Res 300: 18-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bertoli S, Smurzynski J, Probst R. 2005; Effects of age, age-related hearing loss, and contralateral cafeteria noise on the discrimination of small frequency changes: psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 6 (03) 207-222
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Billings CJ, Penman TM, McMillan GP, Ellis EM. 2015; Electrophysiology and perception of speech in noise in older listeners: effects of hearing impairment and age. Ear Hear 36 (06) 710-722
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Stecker GC, Tolin WM. 2009; Human evoked cortical activity to signal-to-noise ratio and absolute signal level. Hear Res 254 1–2 15-24
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brody H, Harman D, Ordy JM. 1975. Aging. In: Clinical, Morphologic, and Neuro-Chemical Aspects in the Aging Central Nervous System, Vol. 1. New York: Raven Press
• Cabeza R. 2001; Cognitive neuroscience of aging: contributions of functional neuroimaging. Scand J Psychol 42 (03) 277-286
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carhart R, Jerger J. 1959; Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord 16: 340-345
  Google Scholar
• Charroud C, Steffener J, Le Bars E, Deverdun J, Bonafe A, Abdennour M, Portet F, Molino F, Stern Y, Ritchie K, Menjot de Champfleur N, Akbaraly TN. 2015; Working memory activation of neural networks in the elderly as a function of information processing phase and task complexity. Neurobiol Learn Mem 125: 211-223
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cranford JL, Martin DR. 1991; Age-related changes in binaural processing: I. Evoked potential findings. Am J Otol 12 (05) 357-364
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dubno JR, Dirks DD, Morgan DE. 1984; Effects of age and mild hearing loss on speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 76 (01) 87-96
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elberling C, Bak C, Kofoed B, Lebech J, Saermark K. 1982; Auditory magnetic fields from the human cerebral cortex: location and strength of an equivalent current dipole. Acta Neurol Scand 65 (06) 553-569
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fabiani M, Friedman D. 1995; Changes in brain activity patterns in aging: the novelty oddball. Psychophysiology 32 (06) 579-594
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fabiani M, Friedman D, Cheng JC. 1998; Individual differences in P3 scalp distribution in older adults, and their relationship to frontal lobe function. Psychophysiology 35 (06) 698-708
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fjell AM, Walhovd KB. 2007; Stability of brain potentials, mental abilities, and cortical thickness. Neuroreport 18 (08) 725-728
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gaál ZA, Csuhaj R, Molnár M. 2007; Age-dependent changes of auditory evoked potentials–effect of task difficulty. Biol Psychol 76 (03) 196-208
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodin DS, Squires KC, Henderson BH, Starr A. 1978; Age-related variations in evoked potentials to auditory stimuli in normal human subjects. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 44 (04) 447-458
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goodin DS, Starr A, Chippendale T, Squires KC. 1983; Sequential changes in the P3 component of the auditory evoked potential in confusional states and dementing illnesses. Neurology 33 (09) 1215-1218
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S. 1987; Age-related differences in speech recognition performance as a function of test format and paradigm. Ear Hear 8 (05) 277-282
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gordon-Salant S, Fitzgibbons PJ. 1997; Selected cognitive factors and speech recognition performance among young and elderly listeners. J Speech Lang Hear Res 40 (02) 423-431
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenhouse W, Geisser S. 1959; On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24: 95-112
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Gregoire J, Van der Linden M. 1997; Effect of age on forward and backward digit spans. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 4 (02) 140-149
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Helfer KS, Freyman RL. 2014; Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. J Acoust Soc Am 136 (02) 748-759
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jirsa RE. 1992; The clinical utility of the P3 AERP in children with auditory processing disorders. J Speech Hear Res 35 (04) 903-912
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katayama J, Polich J. 1996; P300 from one-, two-, and three-stimulus auditory paradigms. Int J Psychophysiol 23 1–2 33-40
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kibbe-Michal K, Verkest SB, Gollegly KM, Musiek FE. 1986; Late auditory evoked potentials and the P300. Hear Instr 37: 22-24
  Google Scholar
• Kim JR, Ahn SY, Jeong SW, Kim LS, Park JS, Chung SH, Oh MK. 2012; Cortical auditory evoked potential in aging: effects of stimulus intensity and noise. Otol Neurotol 33 (07) 1105-1112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kropotov J, Ponomarev V, Tereshchenko EP, Müller A, Jäncke L. 2016; Effect of aging on ERP components of cognitive control. Front Aging Neurosci 8: 69
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McCullagh J, Musiek FE, Shinn JB. 2012; Auditory cortical processing in noise in normal-hearing young adults. Audiol Med 10: 114-121
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• McCullagh J, Shinn JB. 2013; Auditory cortical processing in noise in younger and older adults. Hear Balance Commun 11: 182-190
  Google Scholar
• McCullagh J, Weihing J, Musiek F. 2009; Comparisons of P300s from standard oddball and omitted paradigms: implications to exogenous/endogenous contributions. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (03) 187-195 quiz 219.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Obert AD, Cranford JL. 1990; Effects of neocortical lesions on the P300 component of the auditory evoked response. Am J Otol 11 (06) 447-453
  Google Scholar
• Papanicolaou AC, Loring DW, Eisenberg HM. 1984; Age-related differences in recovery cycle of auditory evoked potentials. Neurobiol Aging 5 (04) 291-295
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peters A. 2002; The effects of normal aging on myelin and nerve fibers: a review. J Neurocytol 31 8–9 581-593
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller MK. 2003; Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. Int J Audiol 42: 2S26-2S32
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M. 1995; How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 97 (01) 593-608
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Picton TW, Stuss DT, Champagne SC, Nelson RF. 1984; The effects of age on human event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 21 (03) 312-325
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Roth WT, Kopell BS. 1980; Age-related changes in auditory event-related potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 49 3–4 266-276
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pfefferbaum A, Ford JM, Wenegrat BG, Roth WT, Kopell BS. 1984; Clinical application of the P3 component of event-related potentials. I. Normal aging. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 59 (02) 85-103
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polich J. 1987; Task difficulty, probability, and inter-stimulus interval as determinants of P300 from auditory stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 68 (04) 311-320
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polich J, Howard L, Starr A. 1985; Stimulus frequency and masking as determinants of P300 latency in event-related potentials from auditory stimuli. Biol Psychol 21 (04) 309-318
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reuter-Lorenz PA, Cappell KA. 2008; Neurocognitive aging and the compensation hypothesis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17: 177-182
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Reuter-Lorenz PA, Stanczak L, Miller AC. 1999; Neural recruitment and cognitive aging: two hemispheres are better than one, especially as you age. Psychol Sci 10 (06) 494-500
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• Rossini PM, Rossi S, Babiloni C, Polich J. 2007; Clinical neurophysiology of aging brain: from normal aging to neurodegeneration. Prog Neurobiol 83 (06) 375-400
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Salisbury DF, Desantis MA, Shenton ME, McCarley RW. 2002; The effect of background noise on P300 to suprathreshold stimuli. Psychophysiology 39 (01) 111-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherg M, Vajsar J, Picton TW. 1989; A source analysis of the late human auditory evoked potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1 (04) 336-355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scherg M, Von Cramon D. 1986; Evoked dipole source potentials of the human auditory cortex. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 65 (05) 344-360
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Snell KB, Mapes FM, Hickman ED, Frisina DR. 2002; Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am 112 (02) 720-727
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Squires KC, Hecox KE. 1983; Electro-physiological evaluation of higher level auditory processing. Semin Hear 4: 415-432
  Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
• Stapleton JM, Halgren E. 1987; Endogenous potentials evoked in simple cognitive tasks: depth components and task correlates. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 67 (01) 44-52
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stapleton JM, O’Reilly T, Halgren E. 1987; Endogenous potentials evoked in simple cognitive tasks: scalp topography. Int J Neurosci 36 1–2 75-87
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stuart A, Phillips DP. 1996; Word recognition in continuous and interrupted broadband noise by young normal-hearing, older normal-hearing, and presbyacusic listeners. Ear Hear 17 (06) 478-489
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sutton S, Braren M, Zubin J, John ER. 1965; Evoked-potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science 150 (3700): 1187-1188
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tun PA, O’Kane G, Wingfield A. 2002; Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging 17 (03) 453-467
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Dinteren R, Arns M, Jongsma MLA, Kessels RP. 2014; Combined frontal and parietal P300 amplitudes indicate compensated cognitive processing across the lifespan. Front Aging Neurosci 6: 294
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vaughan Jr HG, Ritter W. 1970; The sources of auditory evoked responses recorded from the human scalp. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 28 (04) 360-367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weihing J, Musiek FE. 2008; An electrophysiological measure of binaural hearing in noise. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (06) 481-495
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar