Human evoked cortical activity to silent gaps in noise: effects of age, attention, and cortical processing speed.
Human evoked cortical activity to silent gaps in noise: effects of age, attention, and cortical processing speed.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0b013e31823fb585
复制
发表时间：
2012-05
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Dubno JR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harris KC;Wilson S;Eckert MA;Dubno JR
本研究的目的是探讨在何种程度上与年龄相关的差异在早期或自动水平的听觉处理和注意力相关的过程解释年龄相关的差异在听觉时间处理。我们假设，年龄相关的差异，注意力和认知复合年龄相关的差异，在自动处理水平，有助于强大的年龄效应在具有挑战性的听力任务中观察到。我们研究了25名听力正常的年轻人和25名听力正常的老年人的皮层事件相关电位（ERP）振幅和潜伏期、处理速度和间隙检测的年龄相关差异和个体差异。ERP引起的短暂的沉默期（间隙），否则连续的宽带噪声，并在两个听力条件下，被动和主动测量。在被动听的过程中，参与者忽略了刺激，安静地阅读。在主动倾听过程中，参与者每次检测到间隙时都会按下按钮。在主动监听期间（3、6、9、12和15 ms），计算每个间隙持续时间的间隙检测（检测百分比）。使用普渡钉板测试和连接测试评估处理速度。重复测量ANOVA评估年龄对间隙检测、处理速度和ERP振幅和延迟的影响。一个“注意调制”结构使用线性回归来检查注意力的影响，同时控制听觉处理中与年龄相关的差异。皮尔森相关分析评估了注意力调节，ERP和处理速度预测行为差距检测的程度。结果：老年人有显着较差的差距检测和较慢的处理速度比年轻的成年人。即使在调整较差的间隙检测，神经生理反应间隙发作是不典型的老年人P2振幅降低，几乎没有N2反应。此外，注意调制的P2反应潜伏期和N2振幅的个体差异预测差距检测和加工速度在老年人。也就是说，老年人与P2潜伏期减少和N2振幅增加与积极倾听有更快的处理速度和更好的间隙检测比老年人的P2潜伏期增加和N2振幅减少与注意力目前的研究结果是广泛的一致与以前的研究结果，老年人表现出显着较差的间隙检测比年轻人在具有挑战性的任务。即使在调整较差的间隙检测后，老年人和年轻人对声音偏移的电生理反应也表现出强烈的差异。此外，注意力调节ERP的程度与处理速度和间隙检测的个体差异有关。两者合计，这些结果表明，与年龄相关的赤字在早期或自动水平的听觉时间处理，一些老年人可能不太能够弥补下降的处理参加刺激。这些结果扩展了我们以前的研究结果，并支持这一假设，即年龄相关的认知或注意力相关的处理，包括处理速度的差异，有助于与年龄相关的差距检测下降。
The goal of this study was to examine the degree to which age-related differences in early or automatic levels of auditory processing and attention-related processes explain age-related differences in auditory temporal processing. We hypothesized that age-related differences in attention and cognition compound age-related differences at automatic levels of processing, contributing to the robust age effects observed during challenging listening tasks. We examined age-related and individual differences in cortical event-related potential (ERP) amplitudes and latencies, processing speed, and gap detection from twenty-five younger and twenty-five older adults with normal hearing. ERPs were elicited by brief silent periods (gaps) in an otherwise continuous broadband noise and were measured under two listening conditions, passive and active. During passive listening, participants ignored the stimulus and read quietly. During active listening, participants button pressed each time they detected a gap. Gap detection (percent detected) was calculated for each gap duration during active listening (3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 ms). Processing speed was assessed using the Purdue Pegboard test and the Connections Test. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed effects of age on gap detection, processing speed, and ERP amplitudes and latencies. An “attention modulation” construct was created using linear regression to examine the effects of attention while controlling for age-related differences in auditory processing. Pearson correlation analyses assessed the extent to which attention modulation, ERPs, and processing speed predicted behavioral gap detection. Results: Older adults had significantly poorer gap detection and slower processing speed than younger adults. Even after adjusting for poorer gap detection, the neurophysiological response to gap onset was atypical in older adults with reduced P2 amplitudes and virtually absent N2 responses. Moreover, individual differences in attention modulation of P2 response latencies and N2 amplitudes predicted gap detection and processing speed in older adults. That is, older adults with P2 latencies that decreased and N2 amplitudes that increased with active listening had faster processing speed and better gap detection than those older adults whose P2 latencies increased and N2 amplitudes decreased with attention Results from the current study are broadly consistent with previous findings that older adults exhibit significantly poorer gap detection than younger adults in challenging tasks. Even after adjusting for poorer gap detection, older and younger adults showed robust differences in their electrophysiological responses to sound offset. Furthermore, the degree to which attention modulated the ERP was associated with individual variation in measures of processing speed and gap detection. Taken together, these results suggests an age-related deficit in early or automatic levels of auditory temporal processing and that some older adults may be less able to compensate for declines in processing by attending to the stimulus. These results extend our previous findings and support the hypothesis that age-related differences in cognitive or attention-related processing, including processing speed, contribute to an age-related decrease in gap detection.