Cortical and subcortical auditory evoked potentials with verbal stimulus: correlation and association in adults.
Christine Grellmann Schumacher, Tainá Betti, Hélinton Goulart Moreira and 2 others
PMID 41637260WHAT IT FOUND
Latencies of specific brainstem and cortical responses to speech sounds correlate, but the tests do not predict each other's normal or abnormal results.
A single component delay does not confirm a clinical deficit, so both tests remain necessary for a complete picture.
Key findings
01Statistically significant correlations exist between specific Frequency Following Response components and Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential waves.
02Fisher's exact test showed no significant association between the normal or altered status of Frequency Following Response and Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential components.
03Forty-three point seven five percent of the sample showed alterations in both tests, yet none had proven neurobiological alteration or symptoms.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used a screening of auditory abilities rather than a comprehensive central auditory processing battery. No cognitive screening or self-assessment questionnaire was used to identify suspected alterations. Frequency domain analysis was not performed due to software limitations. Long Latency Auditory Evoked Potential was the last test conducted, so fatigue may have influenced responses. The sample consisted only of young adults with normal hearing thresholds, so results may not apply to patients with hearing loss or other clinical conditions.
Declared interests
Not reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret a correlation between specific wave latencies as evidence that one test can replace the other. The study found no significant association between normal or altered status across the tests, meaning they provide independent information.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →