medigraphic.com
Academia Mexicana de Neurología, A.C.

2011, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Neuroci 2011; 12 (4)

Late auditory responses: MMN and P300, differences by age and gender in two groups of elderly adults with high academic degree and continued intellectual activity

Muñoz-Avilés J, Peñaloza-López YR, Flores-Ávalos BG, Flores-Rodríguez TB, García-Pedroza F, Herrera-Rangel AB

Language: Spanish
References: 34
Page: 174-180
PDF size: 241.27 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: In a previous study, prolongation of P300 wave latencies was observed in women with low education. Objective: To prove that there are not differences in amplitude and latency of mismatch negativity (MMN) and P300 between two groups of elderly adults (aged ≥ 60 years) of both genders with continued intellectual activity and high level of education. Methods: Two groups of elderly adults were allocated into 2 groups with years of education ›15 years. Continued intellectual activity, Wechsler IQ test, mini-mental state examination, clock test and Yesavage scale were evaluated, all with normal results. Normal auditory brainstem responses (ABR). Without risk factors for central auditory processing disorders. ABR, MMN and P300 were measured for both groups: 6-lead (3 central, 3 frontal) latency and amplitude records (p ‹ 0.05). Results: A total of 37 elderly adults were studied: group I (GI, n = 28) with 60-69 years of age (mean 64 ± 2.7 years); group II (GII, n = 9) ³ 70 years (mean 77 ± 3.7 years). Years of formal education in GI: 21 ± 4 years; GII: 20 ± 5 years. In MMN and P300 significant differences were observed between both groups for P300 FZ latency. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that a high level of education and continued intellectual activity in elderly adults influence performance favorably, a finding evidenced by the absence of electrophysiological changes previously described in other elderly adults.


REFERENCES

  1. Riis JL, Chong H, Ryan KK, Wolk DA, Rentz DM, Holcomb PJ, et al. Compensatory neural activity distinguishes different patterns of normal cognitive aging. Neuroimage 2008; 39: 441-54.

  2. Wang JYJ, Zhou DHD, Li J, Zhang M, Deng J, Tang M, et al. Leisure activity and risk of cognitive impairment: The Chongqing aging study. Neurology 2006; 66: 911-13.

  3. Kandel E, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM. Principios de neurociencias. España: Ed. Mc Graw Hill Interamericana; 2001, p. 1149-61.

  4. Burke SN, Barnes CA. Neural plasticity in the ageing brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006; 7: 30-40.

  5. Müller-Oehring EM, Schulte T, Raassi C, Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV. Local-global interference is modulated by age, sex and anterior corpus callosum size. Brain Res 2007; 1142: 189-205.

  6. Madden DJ, Spaniol J, Whiting WL, Bucur B, Provenzale JM, Cabeza R, et al. Adult age differences in the functional neuroanatomy of visual attention: A combined fMRI and DTI study. Neurobiol Aging 2007; 28: 459-76.

  7. Madden DJ. Aging and visual attention. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 2007; 16: 70-4.

  8. Bellis TJ, Nicol T, Kraus N. Aging affects hemispheric asymmetry in the neural representation of speech sounds. J Neurosci 2000; 20: 791-7.

  9. Schmitz K, Salmelin F, Schnitzler A, Parkkonen L, Biermann K, Helenius P. Native language, gender, and functional organization of the auditory cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci 1999; 96: 10460-5.

  10. Bowling A, Iliffe S, Which model of successful ageing should be used? Baseline findings from a British Longitudinal survey of ageing. Age Ageing 2006; 35: 607-14.

  11. Mora F, Segovia G, Del Arco A. Aging, plasticity and environmental enrichment: structural changes and neurotransmitter dynamics in several areas of the brain. Brain Res Rev 2007; 55: 78-88.

  12. Martin JF, Jerger JF. Some effects of aging on central auditory processing. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42: 25-43.

  13. Näätänen R, Paavilainen P, Rinne T, Alho K. The mismatch negativity (MMN) in basic research of central auditory processing: a review. Clin Neurophysiol 2007; 118: 2544-90.

  14. Horvath J, Czigler I, Winker I, Teder-Sl. The temporal window of integration in elderly and young adults. J Neurobiol Aging 2007; 28: 964-75.

  15. Horvath J, Czigler I, Jacobsen T, Maess B, Schrager E, Winker I. MMN or no MMN: no magnitude of deviance effect on the MMN amplitude. Psychophysiology 2008; 45: 60-9.

  16. Jacobson T, Schrögrer E. Is there pre-attentive memory based comparison for pitch? Psychophysiology 2001; 38: 723-7.

  17. List A, Justus T, Robertson LC, Bentin S. A mismatch negativity study of local-global auditory processing. Brain Res 2007; 1153: 122-33.

  18. Bortoleto AB, Borba KC, Dutra GCF, Mirandola BR AC, De Lima IM. Verification of the mismatch negativity responses in normal adult subjects. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol 2007; 7(3): 783-802.

  19. Pulvermuller F, Schtyrov Y. Language outside the focus of attention: the mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Prog Neurobiol 2006; 79: 49-71.

  20. Patel SH, Azzam PN. Characterization of N200 and P300 selected studies of the event-related potential. Int J Med Sci 2005; 2: 147-54.

  21. Zenker F, Barajas de Prat J. Las funciones auditivas centrales. Revista electrónica de audiología 2005. Disponible en: http://www.auditio.com [Consultado el 21/05/2008].

  22. Hirayasu Y, Samura M, Otha H, Ogura C. Sex effects on rate of change of P300 latency with age. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111: 187-94.

  23. Mantas P. Brain cognitive information processing speed of Mantas Puociauskas. Disponible en: http://mantas.dtiltas.it/Mantas Puociauskas P300.html [Consultado el 21/05/2008].

  24. Geal-Dor M, Goldstein A, Kamenir Y, Babkoff H. The effect of aging on event-related potentials and behavioral responses: comparison of tonal, phonologic and semantic targets. Clin Neurophysiol 2006; 117: 1974-89.

  25. Knott V, Bradford L, Dulude L, Millar A, Alwahabi F, Lau T, et al. Effects of stimulus modality and response mode on the P300 event-related potential differentiation of young and elderly adults. Clin Electroencephalogr 2003; 34: 182-90.

  26. Maurits NM, Elting JW, Jager DK, van der Hoeven JH, Brouwer WH. P300 component identification in auditory oddball and novel paradigms using source analysis techniques: reduced latency variability in the elderly. J Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 22: 166-75.

  27. Muller V, Brehmer Y, Oertzen T.V, Li S-C, Linderberger U. Electrophysiological correlates of selective attention: a lifespan comparison. BMC Neurosci 2008; 9:18.

  28. Uemura J. Variability of P300 in elderly patients with dementia during a single day. Int J Rehabil Res 2007; 30: 167-70.

  29. Hall III J. New handbook of auditory evoked responses. Houston, TX: Pearson Education Inc USA; 2007, p. 232-4.

  30. Barón A, Peñaloza Y, Flores B, Flores T, García Pedroza F, Herrera AB. Potenciales corticales auditivos de latencia larga MMN y P300: diferencias por edad, atención y género en dos grupos de adultos mayores. No publicada.

  31. INEGI. II conteo de población y vivienda de 2005. URL: http://www.inegi.gob.mx [Consultado el 20/05/2008].

  32. INEGI educación de 2005. URL: http://www.inegi.gob.mx [Consultado el 20/05/2008].

  33. Ancona X. Hallazgos de P300 en pacientes con tartamudez y controles. México, D.F. Tesis de especialidad en Comunicación, Audiología y Foniatría. Facultad de Medicina- Universidad Nacional Autónoma México; 2008.

  34. Brayne C, Ince PG, Keage HA, Mc Keith JG, Mathews FE, Polvikoski T, et al. (EClipSE collaborative Members). Education, the brain and dementia: neuroprotection or compensation? Brain 2010; 133: 2210-6.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com