Auditory cortical and brainstem response dynamics in quiet and noise amongst unilaterally deaf adults with and without tinnitus

IF 3.7 3区医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neurophysiology Pub Date : 2025-02-28 DOI:10.1016/j.clinph.2025.02.260

MinChul Park , Greg A. O’Beirne , Philip A. Bird , Michael R.D. Maslin

{"title":"Auditory cortical and brainstem response dynamics in quiet and noise amongst unilaterally deaf adults with and without tinnitus","authors":"MinChul Park , Greg A. O’Beirne , Philip A. Bird , Michael R.D. Maslin","doi":"10.1016/j.clinph.2025.02.260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABRs) elicited by sounds in quiet and in noise were compared between unilaterally deaf adults with and without associated tinnitus (UD+T and UD-T). CAEP amplitudes were hypothesised to primarily vary with absolute stimulus levels in UD+T listeners rather than signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), whereas ABR amplitudes would reflect both level and SNR regardless of tinnitus status.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Responses were recorded at 60 and 45 dB nHL with white noise set to give 0 and +10 dB SNR. Participants were 8 UD-T, 13 UD+T listeners, and 13 binaurally hearing controls.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The UD-T group CAEP amplitudes showed an additive effect of stimulus level (p = 0.025) and SNR (p = 0.002) while UD+T and control listeners showed only the effect of SNR (p = 0.004). ABR amplitudes reflected the additive effects of level and SNR in all groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The primary determinant of CAEP amplitudes to signals in noise is SNR not stimulus level. This effect was not apparent in UD-T listeners, whose amplitudes were determined by both level and SNR, similarly to the brainstem potentials.</div></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><div>The findings suggest altered processing of neural noise in unilaterally deaf adult listeners without tinnitus.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10671,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":"172 ","pages":"Pages 81-90"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1388245725003037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) and Auditory Brainstem Responses (ABRs) elicited by sounds in quiet and in noise were compared between unilaterally deaf adults with and without associated tinnitus (UD+T and UD-T). CAEP amplitudes were hypothesised to primarily vary with absolute stimulus levels in UD+T listeners rather than signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), whereas ABR amplitudes would reflect both level and SNR regardless of tinnitus status.

Methods

Responses were recorded at 60 and 45 dB nHL with white noise set to give 0 and +10 dB SNR. Participants were 8 UD-T, 13 UD+T listeners, and 13 binaurally hearing controls.

Results

The UD-T group CAEP amplitudes showed an additive effect of stimulus level (p = 0.025) and SNR (p = 0.002) while UD+T and control listeners showed only the effect of SNR (p = 0.004). ABR amplitudes reflected the additive effects of level and SNR in all groups.

Conclusions

The primary determinant of CAEP amplitudes to signals in noise is SNR not stimulus level. This effect was not apparent in UD-T listeners, whose amplitudes were determined by both level and SNR, similarly to the brainstem potentials.

Significance

The findings suggest altered processing of neural noise in unilaterally deaf adult listeners without tinnitus.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Neurophysiology 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

8.70

自引率

6.40%

发文量

932

审稿时长

59 days

期刊介绍： As of January 1999, The journal Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, and its two sections Electromyography and Motor Control and Evoked Potentials have amalgamated to become this journal - Clinical Neurophysiology. Clinical Neurophysiology is the official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Czech Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, the Italian Clinical Neurophysiology Society and the International Society of Intraoperative Neurophysiology.The journal is dedicated to fostering research and disseminating information on all aspects of both normal and abnormal functioning of the nervous system. The key aim of the publication is to disseminate scholarly reports on the pathophysiology underlying diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system of human patients. Clinical trials that use neurophysiological measures to document change are encouraged, as are manuscripts reporting data on integrated neuroimaging of central nervous function including, but not limited to, functional MRI, MEG, EEG, PET and other neuroimaging modalities.