Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners

Romero, Ana Carla Leite; Frizzo, Ana Claudia Figueiredo; Chagas, Eduardo Federighi Baisi; Isaac, Myriam de Lima

doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.01.007

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original articles • Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. 86 (4) • Jul-Aug 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2019.01.007 copy

Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners^☆ ☆ Please cite this article as: Romero AC, Frizzo AC, Chagas EF, Isaac ML. Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;86:395–404.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Introduction

Cortical auditory evoked potentials have been increasingly used in research and audiological routines. However, there is a lack of studies with a large number of children who are stratified by age group. These would help clarify the variations in latency and amplitude of cortical auditory evoked potentials, and thus help establish reference values in children of different ages.

Objective

To identify the variation in latency and amplitude of the cortical auditory evoked potentials and to establish reference values for the pediatric population.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study. Subjects were born at term and presented with no auditory complaints. A total of 105 children, of up to 6 years and eleven months old, who were divided into 7 age groups, named 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, participated in the study. The tests were carried out using Biologic Navigator Pro. Initially, brainstem auditory evoked potential testing was performed in order to investigate the electrophysiological threshold of the subjects. Then, cortical auditory evoked potentials were elicited through oddball paradigm with tone burst differing in frequency, 750 Hz (frequent) and 1000 Hz (rare), and stimuli differing in speech: /ba/ (frequent) and /da/ (rare). In this study, descriptive and comparative analyzes of tonal and speech stimuli were performed for the age groups.

Results

Significant differences were observed when comparing cortical auditory evoked potentials with speech stimulus in the right ear for P2 amplitude, for P1 latency the left ear, for P2 amplitude of the left ear; and for P1 amplitude of the left ear when performed with tonal stimuli.

Conclusion

The obtained results can be considered as reference values of latency and amplitude of cortical auditory potentials in infants and children, and be used for monitoring their cortical auditory development.

Keywords
Evoked potentials auditory; Electrophysiology; Auditory cortex; Infant; Child

	Groups							p
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	p
LAT P1	101.8 ± 10.0	103.7 ± 11.9	101.9 ± 14.4	109.0 ± 11.5	100.3 ± 14.7	108.0 ± 13.2	102.7 ± 13.9	0.47
AMP P1	4.4 ± 2.0	5.6 ± 2.8	5.0 ± 2.3	4.9 ± 3.0	5.5 ± 2.7	5.6 ± 2.3	4.6 ± 3.3	0.80
LAT N1	151.0 ± 24.3	159.4 ± 34.1	152.8 ± 31.1	170.6 ± 44.1	150.3 ± 33.5	168.2 ± 24.1	162.7 ± 23.8	0.40
AMP N1	3.3 ± 1.7	4.3 ± 2.6	2.9 ± 1.8	3.7 ± 3.4	2.2 ± 2.2	2.6 ± 1.5	3.1 ± 2.4	0.20
LAT P2	197.5 ± 19.1	203.7 ± 36.4	206.9 ± 27.6	221.6 ± 26.5	194.1 ± 37.5	202.4 ± 36.5	203.7 ± 28.1	0.36
AMP P2	4.1 ± 2.7^a	5.3 ± 3.0^b	4.0 ± 2.8	5.0 ± 3.6^c,d	4.1 ± 2.9	2.0 ± 2.2^a,b,c	2.7 ± 2.4^b,d	0.02^a a p ≤ 0.05 statistical difference between groups (Anova-one-way). Equivalent overlapping letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant difference between the groups by the Post Hoc LSD test.
LAT N2	247.9 ± 26.5	259.1 ± 32.7	262.1 ± 26.1	266.7 ± 27.1	244.8 ± 38.2	255.6 ± 33.9	251. 6 ± 29.4	0.47
AMP N2	6.2 ± 2.1	4.6 ± 2.5	5.9 ± 2.4	4.5 ± 2.0	5.6 ± 3.6	4.7 ± 2.6	5.6 ± 2.9	0.48

	Groups							p
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	p
LATP1	91.9 ± 10.4^a,b,c,d	101.5 ± 10.5	106.7 ± 16.5^a	103.1 ± 15.6^b	110.0 ± 25.5^c,e	105.1 ± 9.7^d	96.5 ± 11.7^e	0.02^a a p ≤ 0.05 statistical difference between groups (Anova-one-way). Equivalent overlapping letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant difference between the groups by the Post Hoc LSD test.
AMPP1	4.3 ± 2.8	5.3 ± 2.6	4.1 ± 2.5	5.9 ± 2.3	5.2 ± 2.7	5.1 ± 2.88	4.7 ± 2.4	0.72
LATN1	134.7 ± 37.9	142.6 ± 22.7	155.3 ± 27.3	152.9 ± 32.8	139.4 ± 33.9	153.0 ± 23.8	157.3 ± 32.7	0.27
AMPN1	4.2 ± 3.2	3.9 ± 2.4	3.0 ± 2.3	3.4 ± 3.1	2.1 ± 2.1	1.3 ± 3.3	3.5 ± 3.1	0.08
LATP2	189.1 ± 36.4	190.5 ± 32.1	201.4 ± 41.6	194.8 ± 29.2	186.6 ± 42.3	198.8 ± 40.3	193.9 ± 34.7	0.93
AMPP2	6.3 ± 2.4^a,b,c,d	5.6 ± 3.2^e	3.9 ± 2.7^a	5.4 ± 1.9	4.3 ± 2.5^b	3.4 ± 2.4^c,e	3.9 ± 2.6^d	0.02^a a p ≤ 0.05 statistical difference between groups (Anova-one-way). Equivalent overlapping letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant difference between the groups by the Post Hoc LSD test.
LATN2	245.0 ± 32.8	238.9 ± 34.5	249.9 ± 37.0	246.7 ± 35.7	245.0 ± 41.2	252.9 ± 32.1	244.0 ± 29.0	0.95
AMPN2	4.9 ± 3.7	4.1 ± 4.5	4.6 ± 3.5	4.7 ± 2.9	5.7 ± 3.1	3.7 ± 2.6	4.3 ± 2.3	0.76

	Groups							p ^a a p ≤ 0.05 statistical difference between groups (Anova-one-way).
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
LATP1	106.0 ± 13.0	104.0 ± 12.0	104.0 ± 12.1	105.5 ± 16.6	104.1 ± 12.9	103.4 ± 15.9	103.6 ± 16.6	0.99
AMPP1	4.8 ± 3.1	5.6 ± 2.9	3.4 ± 2.3	5.4 ± 2.6	4.1 ± 2.7	5.0 ± 1.9	3.9 ± 2.8	0.23
LATN1	163.7 ± 32.5	168.0 ± 24.4	144.3 ± 28.4	164.1 ± 23.1	157.5 ± 27.1	165.2 ± 23.7	160.9 ± 27.4	0.31
AMPN1	4.5 ± 3.20	3.9 ± 2.8	2.6 ± 2.1	4.1 ± 3.01	2.9 ± 2.1	4.1 ± 3.4	2.9 ± 3.1	0.42
LATP2	209.1 ± 40.9	210.3 ± 35.5	192.0 ± 37.3	212.5 ± 33.6	195.8 ± 39.5	200.7 ± 41.8	202.6 ± 36.2	0.73
AMPP2	2.9 ± 2.4	3.7 ± 3.0	4.4 ± 1.7	3.5 ± 2.7	3.6 ± 2.4	3.2 ± 2.1	3.2 ± 2.8	0.76
LATN2	249.9 ± 37.3	256.7 ± 25.9	243.5 ± 25.9	265.2 ± 30.5	244.9 ± 39.3	252.3 ± 34.1	254.4 ± 31.0	0.69
AMPN2	5.4 ± 3.1	5.0 ± 2.3	4.3 ± 3.7	5.8 ± 2.7	4.9 ± 2.6	6.6 ± 2.4	5.4 ± 3.3	0.52

	Groups							p
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	p
LATP1	105.5 ± 15.8	103.8 ± 14.0	103.1 ± 12.8	104.3 ± 17.8	105.6 ± 23.1	110.6 ± 10.0	103.7 ± 13.9	0.89
AMPP1	5.4 ± 2.9^a,b	3.5 ± 2.8^a,c	5.8 ± 2.8^c,d,e	5.0 ± 2.7	3.5 ± 2.2^d	3.0 ± 2.7^b,e	4.0 ± 3.3	0.03^a a p ≤ 0.05 statistical difference between groups (Anova-one-way). Equivalent overlapping letters (a, b, c, d, e) indicate significant difference between the groups by the Post Hoc LSD test.
LATN1	156.6 ± 29.5	160.1 ± 26.1	159.3 ± 28.5	162.9 ± 32.4	154.0 ± 28.8	161.4 ± 14.2	165.0 ± 34.2	0.95
MPN1	3.3 ± 4.4	3.1 ± 3.0	3.8 ± 1.8	3.1 ± 3.4	3.8 ± 3.8	4.3 ± 3.1	4.0 ± 2.7	0.93
LATP2	202.2 ± 29.9	204.3 ± 31.9	203.8 ± 38.5	207.2 ± 42.5	201.0 ± 36.4	203.5 ± 27.6	206.1 ± 43.7	0.99
AMPP2	4.0 ± 3.5	4.1 ± 3.1	3.3 ± 2.7	3.3 ± 2.6	2.0 ± 1.5	3.6 ± 2.5	3.1 ± 2.4	0.38
LATN2	244.6 ± 29.4	243.4 ± 27.5	250.4 ± 40.6	240.5 ± 38.8	243.9 ± 38.2	248.5 ± 32.8	249.1 ± 28.9	0.98
AMPN2	5.6 ± 2.9	5.9 ± 2.5	5.0 ± 3.6	5.5 ± 4.0	4.2 ± 3.3	5.0 ± 2.6	5.3 ± 3.1	0.81

Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico-Facial. Sede da Associação Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cérvico Facial, Av. Indianópolia, 1287, 04063-002 São Paulo/SP Brasil, Tel.: (0xx11) 5053-7500, Fax: (0xx11) 5053-7512 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@aborlccf.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author. anacarla_lr123@hotmail.com

Brasil

Brasil

Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners☆ ☆ Please cite this article as: Romero AC, Frizzo AC, Chagas EF, Isaac ML. Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;86:395–404.

Abstract

Introduction

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners^☆ ☆ Please cite this article as: Romero AC, Frizzo AC, Chagas EF, Isaac ML. Cortical auditory evoked potential in babies and children listeners. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;86:395–404.