Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2024; 28(04): e708-e719
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782629
Systematic Review

Effect of Modulated Masking on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential in Normal Hearing Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Mônyka Ferreira Borges Rocha 
1   Department of Speech Therapy, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
,
Karina Paes Advíncula 
2   Department of Speech Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
,
Jéssica Dayane da Silva 
3   Department of Human Communication Health, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil
,
Pedro de Lemos Menezes 
4   Department of Speech Therapy, Universidade Estadual de Ciências da Saúde de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
5   Department of Biotechnology, Universidade Federal de Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding The authors declare that the present work was supported by Fundação Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES, Brazil), under funding code 001.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The study of electrophysiological auditory measures with different types of masking makes it possible to understand temporal processing skills and the processes involved in speech recognition in noise situations. The use of modulated masking in cortical measures of hearing enables the obtainment of analysis parameters of the masking release and its impact on neural auditory processing.

Objective To investigate the behavior of cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) with modulated masking in the normal hearing population.

Data synthesis A total of 2,159 articles were identified in the initial search; of these, 12 were selected for full reading. After excluding studies that did not meet the eligibility criteria, six articles were included in the present systematic review.

The results show that the type of masking has an influence on cortical auditory behavior, indicating a different effect on neural posture rergarding CAEP responses. Modulated noise as masking in the CAEP record generated statistically higher and earlier responses compared with non-modulated/steady noise, evidenced by the results obtained in the meta-analysis with subgroup analysis. These responses may indicate an influence of the type of noise in the neural auditory coding.

Conclusion Better responses were observed in modulated masking in terms of the behavior of CAEPs. Decreased latency and increased amplitude of cortical measurements with the use of modulated noise indicate a lower masking effect of this noise in cortical auditory processing, evidencing the masking release phenomenon.

Keywords

electrophysiology - auditory evoked potentials - noise - speech perception - perceptual masking - hearing

Ethical Conduct of Research

By their signature, all authors state that their study obtained the required ethical clearance and respected all ethical considerations and that, in particular, if the study involved human subjects, signed informed consent was obtained and privacy, respected; all the related documents are attached to this submission.


Authorship

By their signature, all authors state that they have played a significant role in the conception, design, data analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript, as stated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): “Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND final approval of the version to be published; AND agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”




Publication History

Received: 05 December 2022

Accepted: 18 February 2024

Article published online:
12 April 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • References

  • 1 Mehraei G, Gallardo AP, Shinn-Cunningham BG, Dau T. Auditory brainstem response latency in forward masking, a marker of sensory deficits in listeners with normal hearing thresholds. Hear Res 2017; 346: 34-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Shinn JB, Musiek FE. Temporal processing: the basics. Hear J 2003; 56 (07) 52
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Middlebrooks JC. Masking release by combined spatial and masker-fluctuation effects in the open sound field. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (06) 3362-3375
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, D'Aquila LA. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: The effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 141 (06) 4452-4465
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Grose JH, Menezes DC, Porter HL, Griz S. Masking period patterns and forward masking for speech-shaped noise: age-related effects. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (01) 48-54
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Madeiro LB, de Andrade KCL, Marinho LAP. et al. Cognitive and auditory aspects: the effect of aging on the decline of speech recognition. Distúrb Comun 2021; 33 (04) 695-704
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Bennett KO, Billings CJ, Molis MR, Leek MR. Neural encoding and perception of speech signals in informational masking. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (02) 231-238
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Schoof T, Rosen S. The Role of Age-Related Declines in Subcortical Auditory Processing in Speech Perception in Noise. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2016; 17 (05) 441-460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Rocha MFB. Masking in cortical auditory evoked potentials with speech stimulation. [dissertation]. Recife: Federal University of Pernambuco, Masters in Human Communication Health; 2020
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Costa I, D'Agostini AR, Sousa JA, Souza APR, Biaggio EPV. Cortical auditory evoked potentials in 2-year-old subjects. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 24 (03) e282-e287
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Oliveira LS, Didoné DD, Durante AS. Automated cortical auditory evoked potentials threshold estimation in neonates. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2019; 85 (02) 206-212
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2021; 18 (03) e1003583
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Modesti PA, Reboldi G, Cappuccio FP. et al; ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Resource Settings. Panethnic differences in blood pressure in europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11 (01) e0147601
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Epp B, Yasin I, Verhey JL. Objective measures of binaural masking level differences and comodulation masking release based on late auditory evoked potentials. Hear Res 2013; 306: 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Zhang C, Lu L, Wu X, Li L. Attentional modulation of the early cortical representation of speech signals in informational or energetic masking. Brain Lang 2014; 135: 85-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Maamor N, Billings CJ. Cortical signal-in-noise coding varies by noise type, signal-to-noise ratio, age, and hearing status. Neurosci Lett 2017; 636: 258-264
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tanner AM, Spitzer ER, Hyzy JP, Grose JH. Masking release for speech in modulated maskers: electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 1009-1015
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Rocha MFB, Menezes DC, Duarte DSB. et al. Masking release in cortical auditory evoked potentials with speech stimulus. CoDAS 2022; 35 (01) e20200334
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Androulidakis AG, Jones SJ. Detection of signals in modulated and unmodulated noise observed using auditory evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117 (08) 1783-1793
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Billings CJ, Bennett KO, Molis MR, Leek MR. Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (01) 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, Delhorne LA. Speech reception by listeners with real and simulated hearing impairment: effects of continuous and interrupted noise. J Acoust Soc Am 2010; 128 (01) 342-359
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Bernstein JG, Summers V, Iyer N, Brungart DS. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker. J Acoust Soc Am 2012; 132 (04) 2676-2689
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, Griz SMS. Effect of modulation rate on masking release for speech. Audiol Commun Res 2013; 18 (04) 238-244
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Grose JH, Griz S, Pacífico FA, Advíncula KP, Menezes DC. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (04) 274-281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Alvarenga KdeF, Vicente LC, Lopes RCF. et al. The influence of speech stimuli contrast in cortical auditory evoked potentials. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2013; 79 (03) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Oppitz SJ, Didoné DD, Silva DD. et al. Long-latency auditory evoked potentials with verbal and nonverbal stimuli. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2015; 81 (06) 647-652
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Silva LSS, Regaçone SF, de Oliveira ACS, de Oliveira LS, Fernandes FT, Frizzo ACF. Auditory cortical potential: using different types of speech stimuli in children. Audiol Commun Res 2017; 22: e1788
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Niemczak CE, Vander Werff KR. Informational masking effects on neural encoding of stimulus onset and acoustic change. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (01) 156-167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Small SA, Sharma M, Bradford M, Mandikal Vasuki PR. The effect of signal to noise ratio on cortical auditory-evoked potentials elicited to speech stimuli in infants and adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 305-317
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar