RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012 www.PosterPresentations.com A holis/c descrip/on of auditory processing abili/es in university athletes, a popula/on that is par/cularly suscep/ble to head injury, is crucial to developing a sensi/ve test baLery to detect poten/al auditory processing deficits. The development of a test baLery necessitates a within subject comparison of a variety of behavioral and electrophysiological tests to evaluate paLerns of dysfunc/on in this group. The aim of the present study is to inves/gate the effects of concussion on temporal processing, dicho/c listening, binaural processing and neural synchrony u/lizing clinical tests. FiReen athletes with heterogeneous sports histories of concussion and normal peripheral hearing were administered a behavioral test baLery, which consisted of dicho/c rhyme (DR), masking level difference (MLD) and Gaps in Noise (GIN) test, as well as a electrophysiological test baLery, which consisted of auditory brainstem response (ABR, cABR) and auditory late response (ALR). Preliminary analyses reveal abnormal ABR classifica/ons and a significantly larger right ear advantage on DR in the high severity concussion group rela/ve to the low severity group. Further sta/s/cal analysis and examina/on of the data will aim to incorporate electrophysiological results and determine poten/al risk factors for auditory processing deficits associated with head injury in athle/cs. Abstract The aim of the study is to inves/gate the effects of sportrelated concussion (SRC) on auditory processing and auditory pathway physiology in university athletes using behavioral and electrophysiologic tests. We hypothesize that there will be differences in the performance of individuals with a more severe history of SRC, as compared to those with a less severe history of SRC, on the behavioral and electrophysiological tests of central auditory func/on, even aRer acute concussive symptoms have subsided (Theriault et al., 2009; Beaumont et al., 2007; Gosselin et al., 2006). Research has demonstrated a high incidence of auditory processing deficits in individuals with moderate or severe head injury, with one study repor/ng auditory processing deficits in 58% of par/cipants with moderatesevere head injury even aRer recovery from other symptoms (Bergemalm & Lyxell, 2005). However, literature on the effects of sportrelated concussion (the mildest form of head injury) on auditory processing deficits has been primarily focused on electrophysiological measures, most commonly auditory late poten/als (P300). One of the goals of this study is to evaluate the u/lity of different clinical tes/ng procedures, which have been used in more severe types of head injury, in the SRC popula/on. Individuals in the athle/c popula/on have a significantly higher incidence of concussion than nonathletes, and therefore may be considered an atrisk popula/on for auditory processing deficits. Learning in the classroom, regardless of age, is heavily dependent on auditory input and confounded by poor listening condi/ons, such as noise and reverbera/on, which are more detrimental to individuals with auditory processing deficits (Weihing & Musiek, 2012). Therefore, it is important to assess the auditory processing of individuals in this popula/on so that appropriate recommenda/ons can be made to bolster academic success. Purpose & IntroducAon Preliminary ANOVA analyses reveal no sta/s/cally significant results, though a larger right ear advantage (REA) on DR in the high severity versus the low severity concussion group was observed (ANOVA, p=0.13). All par/cipants in the high severity group also demonstrated grossly abnormal clickevoked ABR waveforms based on poor morphology and/or replicability, while those in the low severity group exhibited grossly normal click evoked ABR waveforms. Results • Par/cipants consisted of sixteen university athletes with heterogeneous sports and concussion histories. • Candidacy was confirmed through: • selfreported sport, medical, and head injury history encompassing the athlete’s en/re athle/c career • the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR) to screen for low premorbid intellectual/cogni/ve func/oning • a normal comprehensive audiologic examina/on consis/ng of otoscopy, tympanometry, distor/on product otoacous/c emissions (DPOAEs), and puretone and speech audiometry bilaterally. • The Amsterdam Auditory Disability Inventory was administered to quan/fy auditory disability • Central auditory processing was assessed: • the dicho/c rhyme (DR) • gapsinnoise (GIN) • masking level difference (MLD) • auditory brainstem response (ABR, cABR) • auditory late response (ALR) • the Digit Span Test (forward and backward digits) • the DelisKaplan Execu/ve Func/on System (DKEFS) Trail Making Test Methods Discussion & Conclusions Findings of a larger REA in a closed head injury popula/on are consistent with those of Benavidez et al. (1999) secondary to shearing of corpus callosum fibers and demyelina/on. Poor morphology of EP waveforms is also consistent with the pathophysiology of concussion, primarily affec/ng axonal fiber tract physiology (i.e. ascending auditory pathway, corpus callosum), which is not evident on tradi/onal structural imaging studies. Acknowledgements & References Thank you to the Royal Arch Research Assistance (RARA) Grant for funding our Lab, and this project in par/cular, which allowed us to provide compensa/on to the par/cipants of this study. Please use this QR Code to download a list of references and suggested readings. Julianne Ceru/, B.A. 1 , Stephanie Waryasz, B.S. 1 , Frank Musiek, Ph.D. 2 , Pradeep Ramanathan, Ph.D. 1 1 University of Connec/cut, Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences 2 University of Arizona, Department of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences Effects of SportsRelated Concussion on Auditory Processing in University Athletes Fig 1: EP Results from Par/cipant with More Severe History of Concussion Subject Age Sex PTAR (O) PTAL (X) Severity WTAR DS Forward DS Back DKEFS VS DKEFS NS DKEFS LS DKEFS NLS DKEFS M DRT R DRT L DRT Diff GIN R GIN L GIN Diff MLD 16 19 F 6.7 8.3 High 37 6 5 13 10 14 5 10 46.7 43.3 3.3 6 5 1 13 17 19 F 3.3 5.0 High 42 6 4 13 13 13 13 12 50.0 40.0 10.0 5 8 3 19 19 M 8.3 5.0 High 40 5 4 14 13 9 9 12 56.7 33.3 23.4 6 6 0 10 4 20 M 6.7 6.7 High 42 6 5 10 12 11 9 12 60.0 40.0 20.0 12 8 4 8 19 M 11.7 11.7 High 37 8 5 13 13 13 6 8 36.7 43.3 6.7 4 5 1 7 7 18 F 5.0 5.0 High 41 7 6 11 9 14 7 13 36.7 53.3 16.7 5 5 0 12 20 M 6.7 6.7 High 42 7 7 12 11 11 10 12 57.0 33.0 24.0 8 10 2 15 21 F 6.7 5.0 High 35 6 7 12 13 13 13 13 30.0 50.0 20.0 4 5 1 9 20 22 M 3.3 6.7 Low 42 6 4 50.0 33.3 16.7 5 5 0 13 11 20 M 13.3 11.7 Low 40 6 3 13 13 12 6 13 36.7 40.0 3.3 5 5 0 9 20 M 6.7 6.7 Low 46 8 6 13 14 13 13 13 36.7 53.3 16.7 5 8 3 10 19 M 11.7 5.0 Low 42 6 6 13 12 12 6 12 43.0 50.0 7.0 6 10 4 21 21 M 10.0 5.0 Low 39 7 4 36.7 60.0 23.3 8 5 3 1 21 F 3.3 6.7 Low 44 9 8 10 12 13 14 12 43.0 40.0 3.0 5 5 0 5 5 21 F 1.7 1.7 Low 38 8 8 11 14 14 12 12 36.7 53.3 16.7 5 4 1 6 22 F 13.3 11.7 Low 48 5 5 12 12 12 13 12 40.0 56.7 16.7 5 5 0 15 pvalue 0.01 0.59 0.89 0.09 0.40 0.87 0.72 0.17 0.60 0.37 0.27 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.47 0.54 0.91 0.69 The table to the leR (Table 1) describes the par/cipants who were classified as “more severe” and the table above (Table 2) describes the par/cipants who were classified as “less severe”. Par/cipants were divided into high severity and low severity groups based on concussion history, which included number of head hits, severity of head hits and symptoms as well as extent and dura/on of academic and athle/c reprieve aRer each incident. Table 3 summarizes the behavioral tes/ng data obtained for each par/cipant. Table 1: Summary of Concussion History in More Severe Concussion Group Table 2: Summary of Concussion History in Less Severe Concussion Group Table 3: Summary of Behavioral Results for each Par/cipant .5 uV 1 uV 1 uV N1: 78 ms | 4.51 uV P2: 124 ms | 4.85 uV N1: 83 ms|2.94 uV P2: 114 ms|1.94 uV N1: 90 ms | 5.12uV P2: 155 ms | 5.5 uV N1: 94 ms|1.62 uV P2: 124 ms|2.81 uV .5 uV Fig 2: EP Results from Par/cipant with Less Severe History of Concussion N1: 75 ms | 4.01 uV P2: 145 ms | 6.51 uV IIII: 1.9 ms IIIV: 1.65 ms V: 5.35 ms | .72 uV IIII: 2.08 ms IIIV: 1.6 ms V: 5.3 ms | .5 uV IIII: 2.13 ms IIIV: 2.13 ms V: 5.90 ms | .21 uV IIII: 2.33 ms IIIV: 2.07 ms V: 5.93 ms | .52 uV N1: 80 ms | 4.46 uV P2: 139 ms | 5.18 uV