Brainstem auditory physiology in children with listening difficulties

• Published in: Hearing research 2023-03, Vol.429, p.108705-108705, Article 108705
• Main Authors: Hunter, Lisa L., Blankenship, Chelsea M., Shinn-Cunningham, Barbara, Hood, Linda, Zadeh, Lina Motlagh, Moore, David R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Auditory brainstem response; Auditory Perception - physiology; Auditory processing disorder; Brain Stem; Child; Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem; Extended high frequency; Humans; Listening difficulty; Middle ear muscle reflex; Noise; Prospective Studies; Speech in noise; Speech Perception - physiology
• ISSN: 0378-5955; 1878-5891
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2023.108705

•Auditory brainstem responses had shorter latency Wave III and V in LiD.•Middle ear muscle reflexes had increased growth in children with LiD.•ABR and MEMR related to reported listening problems and speech in noise. Children who have listening difficulties (LiD) despite having normal audiometry are often diagnosed as having an auditory processing disorder. A lack of evidence regarding involvement of specific auditory mechanisms has limited development of effective treatments for these children. Here, we examined electrophysiologic evidence for brainstem pathway mechanisms in children with and without defined LiD. We undertook a prospective controlled study of 132 children aged 6–14 years with normal pure tone audiometry, grouped into LiD (n = 63) or Typically Developing (TD; n = 69) based on scores on the Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS), a validated caregiver report. The groups were matched on age at test, sex, race, and ethnicity. Neither group had diagnoses of major neurologic disorder, intellectual disability, or brain injuries. Both groups received a test battery including a measure of receptive speech perception against distractor speech, Listening in Spatialized Noise - Sentences (LiSN-S), along with multiple neurophysiologic measures that tap afferent and efferent auditory subcortical pathways. Group analysis showed that participants with LiD performed significantly poorer on all subtests of the LiSN-S. The LiD group had significantly greater wideband middle ear muscle reflex (MEMR) growth functions in the left ear, and shorter Wave III and Wave V latencies in auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Across individual participants, shorter latency ABR Wave V correlated significantly with poorer parent report of LiD (ECLiPS composite). Greater MEMR growth functions also correlated with poorer ECLiPS scores and reduced LiSN-S talker advantage. The LiD and TD groups had equivalent summating potentials, compound action potentials, envelope-following responses, and binaurally activated medial olivocochlear reflexes. In conclusion, there was no evidence for auditory synaptopathy for LiD. Evidence for brainstem differences in the LiD group was interpreted as increased central gain, with shorter ABR Wave III and V latencies and steeper MEMR growth curves. These differences were related to poorer parent report and speech perception in competing speech ability.