|
|
|
|
|
|
Year: 2017 Vol. 21 Num. Suppl. 1 -
Hearing & Balance 2017
|
Print: |
|
|
|
|
Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential: Monitoring of Speech-Language Intervention in Schoolchildren with Dyslexia |
|
How to cite this article |
Ferreira DMO, Capellini SA, Oliveira LS, Lucas BE, Alcantara YB, Frizzo AC, et al. Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential: Monitoring of Speech-Language Intervention in Schoolchildren with Dyslexia. Int. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;21(Suppl. 1):S6-S7 |
|
Author(s): |
Dayse Mayara Oliveira Ferreira, Simone Aparecida Capellini, Letícia Sampaio de Oliveira, Brena Elisa Lucas, Yara Bagali Alcantara, Ana Claudia Frizzo
|
|
|
Key words: |
event-related potentials; P300; intervention; dyslexia |
|
|
|
Abstract: |
Introduction: Long latency auditory evoked potentials are relevant electrophysiological responses in audiological assessments for providing objective and quantitative data on the functionality of central auditory structures; and are useful in monitoring therapeutic intervention.
Objective: To analyze and compare results before and after speech intervention.
Method: Ten dyslexic children aged 7 years and 11 months participated in the study. The measurement was performed with tone burst sound stimulus at 70dB NA, which differed in frequency (1000Hz-standard and 2000Hz-non-standard), presented randomly, in an oddball paradigm. The procedure was performed before and after intervention. For intervention, the training of phonological and metalinguistic skills of consciousness of word, syllables, phonemes, rhyme and alliteration were performed.
Results: The mean latency values for pre-therapy dyslexic children were: RIGHT EAR P1 = 113.40ms; N1 = 136.31ms; P2 = 187.62ms; N2 = 214.69ms; P3 = 341.69ms; LEFT EAR: P1 = 91.77ms; N1 = 137.58ms; P2 = 180.41ms; N2 = 219.29ms; P3 = 336.49ms. And post-therapy were: RIGHT EAR P1 = 107.47ms; N1 = 131.10ms; P2 = 183.15ms; N2 = 238.03ms; P3 = 341.09ms; LEFT EAR: P1 = 92.89ms; N1 = 123.08ms; P2 = 167.02ms; N2 = 195.43ms; P3 = 320.27ms. There was no statistical difference between pre and post-therapy evaluations. The morphology of the N2-P3 wave complex was more stable in the post-training evaluation.
Conclusion: In this study, latency of long latency auditory evoked potential components was not an appropriate pre- and post-intervention evaluation instrument for monitoring the therapeutic intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All right reserved. Prohibited the reproduction of papers
without previous authorization of FORL © 1997-
2024
|
|
|
|
|