Sensorimotor rhythm neurofeedback training and auditory perception

Ivana  Stanković; Nela V. Ilić; Tihomir V.  Ilić; Ljiljana Jeličić; Mirjana  Sovilj; Vesna Martić; Silvana  Punišić; Miodrag Stokić

doi:10.2298/VSP210902033S

Ivana Stanković Institute for Experimental Phonetics and Speech Pathology “Djordje Kostić”, Belgrade, Serbia
Nela V. Ilić University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia
Tihomir V. Ilić University of Defence, Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia
Ljiljana Jeličić Research and Development Institute – Life Activities Advancement Center, Belgrade, Serbia
Mirjana Sovilj Institute for Experimental Phonetics and Speech Pathology “Djordje Kostić”, Belgrade, Serbia
Vesna Martić University of Defence, Faculty of Medicine of the Military Medical Academy, Belgrade, Serbia
Silvana Punišić Research and Development Institute – Life Activities Advancement Center, Belgrade, Serbia
Miodrag Stokić Research and Development Institute – Life Activities Advancement Center, Belgrade, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP210902033S

Keywords: auditory perception, cognition, electroencephalography, event-related potentials, p300, evoked potentials, auditory, feedback, sensory

Abstract

Background/Aim. In everyday communication, people are exposed to a myriad of sounds that need to be sorted and relevant information extracted. The ability of a person to concentrate on certain sounds in a noisy background environment, perform selective attention, and focus their auditory attention is crucial for everyday functioning and communication. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) (12–15 Hz) neurofeedback (NFB) training to improve auditory cognition measured by the achievements in the Quick speech-in-noise (QuickSIN) test, changes in the amplitudes and latencies of components of auditory evoked potentials (AEP) N100, N200, and P300 in the auditory oddball discrimination task, and changes in the spectral power of the SMR. Methods. The study included 16 healthy participants aged 25–40 years (8 males and 8 females). Each participant had 20 daily sessions of SMR NFB training. Auditory cognitive functions and electrophysiological correlates of cognitive processing were recorded 5 times – before NFB, after 5, 10, and 20 sessions, and one month after the last session of NFB. Results. The results showed a statistically significant decrease in N200 and P300 latencies at frontal midline (Fz), central midline (Cz), and parietal midline (Pz) regions, an improvement on the QuickSIN test, and an increase in electroencephalogram SMR rhythm spectral power in the Cz region as a result of the NFB SMR training. No significant effect of the NFB training on the N100, N200, and P300 amplitudes on Fz, Cz, and Pz was found. Conclusion. The obtained results suggest that SMR NFB affects auditory perception in terms of shorter latencies of AEP and better performance on the QuickSIN test.

Author Biography

Miodrag Stokić, Research and Development Institute – Life Activities Advancement Center, Belgrade, Serbia

naučni saradnik

References

1. Alickovic E, Lunner T, Gustafsson F, Ljung L. A Tutorial on Au-ditory Attention Identification Methods. Front Neurosci 2019; 13: 153.

2. Bronkhorst AW. The Cocktail Party Phenomenon: A Review on Speech Intelligibility in Multiple-Talker Conditions. Acta Acus-tica united with Acustica. 2000; 86(1): 117–28.

3. Sterman MB. Basic concepts and clinical findings in the treat-ment of seizure disorders with EEG operant conditioning. Clin Electroencephalogr 2000; 31(1): 45‒55.

4. Marzbani H, Marateb HR, Mansourian M. Neurofeedback: A Comprehensive Review on System Design, Methodology and Clinical Applications. Basic Clin Neurosci 2016; 7(2): 143‒58.

5. Caria A, Sitaram R, Birbaumer N. Real-time fMRI: a tool for lo-cal brain regulation. Neuroscientist 2012; 18(5): 487‒501.

6. Vernon DJ. Can neurofeedback training enhance performance? An evaluation of the evidence with implications for future re-search. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2005; 30 (4): 347‒64.

7. Thompson M, Thompson L. The neurofeedback book. 2nd ed. Overland Park, Kansas: Association for Applied Psychophysi-ology and Biofeedback; 2003.

8. Vojnović M. QuickSIN Test Method for Hearing Loss Meas-urement. In: Jovičić ST, Sovilj M, editors. Speech and Language, Interdisciplinary research III. Belgrade: Institut za eksperi-mentalnu fonetiku i patologiju govora; 2011. p. 241‒58.

9. Duarte JL, Alvarenga Kde F, Banhara MR, Melo AD, Sás RM, Cos-ta Filho OA. P300-long-latency auditory evoked potential in normal hearing subjects: simultaneous recording value in Fz and Cz. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2009; 75(2): 231‒6.

10. Saeid S, Chambers JA. EEG Signal Processing. Centre of Digital Signal Processing, Cardiff University UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007.

11. Kober SE, Witte M, Stangl M, Väljamäe A, Neuper C, Wood G. Shutting down sensorimotor interference unblocks the net-works for stimulus processing: an SMR neurofeedback training study. Clin Neurophysiol 2015; 126: 82–95.

12. Reichert JL, Kober SE, Schweiger D, Grieshofer P, Neuper C, Wood G. Shutting Down Sensorimotor Interferences after Stroke: A Proof-of-Principle SMR Neurofeedback Study. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 348.

13. Rietdijk W, Franken I, Thurik R. Internal Consistency of Event-Related Potentials Associated with Cognitive Control: N2/P3 and ERN/Pe. PloS One 2014; 9(7): e102672.

14. Coles MGH, Rugg MD. Event-related brain potentials: an intro-duction. In: Rugg MD, Coles MGH, editors. Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. pp. 1–26.

15. Djurić S. Evoked potentials. Niš: Prosveta; 2002. (Serbian)

16. Vernon D, Egner T, Cooper N, Compton T, Neilands C, Sheri A, et al. The effect of training distinct neurofeedback protocols on aspects of cognitive performance. Int J Psychophysiol 2003; 47(1): 75‒85.

17. Egner T, Gruzelier JH. EEG biofeedback of low beta band components: frequency-specific effects on variables of atten-tion and event-related brain potentials. Clin Neurophysiol 2004; 115(1): 131‒9.

18. Hoedlmoser K, Pecherstorfer T, Gruber G, Anderer P, Doppelmayr M, Klimesch W, et al. Instrumental conditioning of human sen-sorimotor rhythm (12-15 Hz) and its impact on sleep as well as declarative learning. Sleep 2008; 31(10): 1401‒8.

19. Kober SE, Schweiger D, Witte M, Reichert JL, Grieshofer P, Neuper C, et al. Specific effects of EEG based neurofeedback training

on memory functions in post-stroke victims. J Neuroeng Re-habil 2015; 12: 107.

20. deBettencourt MT, Cohen JD, Lee RF, Norman KA, Turk-Browne NB. Closed-loop training of attention with real-time brain im-aging. Nat Neurosci 2015; 18(3): 470‒5.

21. Ros T, Moseley MJ, Bloom PA, Benjamin L, Parkinson LA, Gru-zelier JH. Optimizing microsurgical skills with EEG neu-rofeedback. BMC Neurosci 2009; 10: 87.

22. Morand-Beaulieu S, Perrault MA, Lavoie M. Test-Retest Reliability of Event-Related Potentials Across Three Tasks. J Psycho-physiol 2022; 36(2): 100‒17.

23. Perez AP, Ziliotto K, Pereira LD. Test-Retest of Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potentials (P300) with Pure Tone and Speech Stimuli. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017; 21(2): 134‒9.

24. Sandman CA, Patterson JV. The auditory event-related potential is a stable and reliable measure in elderly subjects over a 3 year period. Clin Neurophysiol 2000; 111(8): 1427‒37.

25. Walhovd KB, Fjell AM. One-year test-retest reliability of audito-ry ERPs in young and old adults. Int J Psychophysiol 2002; 46(1): 29‒40.

26. Engelbregt HJ, Keeser D, van Eijk L, Suiker EM, Eichhorn D, Karch S, et al. Short and long-term effects of sham-controlled pre-frontal EEG-neurofeedback training in healthy subjects. Clin Neurophysiol 2016; 127(4): 1931‒7.

27. Bussalb A, Congedo M, Barthélemy Q, Ojeda D, Acquaviva E, De-lorme R, et al. Clinical and Experimental Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Neurofeedback in ADHD: A Meta-Analysis. Front Psychiatry 2019; 10: 35.

28. Gadea M, Aliño M, Garijo E, Espert R, Salvador A. Testing the Benefits of Neurofeedback on Selective Attention Measured Through Dichotic Listening. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2016; 41(2): 157‒64.

29. Azizi A, Mir Drikvand F, Sepahvani MA. Comparison of the Ef-fect of Cognitive Rehabilitation and Neurofeedback on Sus-tained Attention Among Elementary School Students With Specific Learning Disorder: A Preliminary Randomized Con-trolled Clinical Trial. Basic Clin Neurosci 2020; 11(4): 465‒72.

30. Lee EJ, Jung CH. Additive effects of neurofeedback on the treatment of ADHD: A randomized controlled study. Asian J Psychiatr 2017; 25: 16‒21.

31. Baumeister S, Wolf I, Holz N, Boecker-Schlier R, Adamo N, Holt-mann M, et al. Neurofeedback Training Effects on Inhibitory Brain Activation in ADHD: A Matter of Learning? Neurosci-ence 2018; 378: 89‒99.