Implications of Auditory ERP Outcomes for Auditory Integration Training in Autism

• Published in: Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback Vol. 38; no. 3; p. 231
• Main Authors: Kiser, Ryan Mikel Burdette, Edelson, Stephen M, Sokhadze, Guela, Casanova, Manuel F, Sokhadze, Estate
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Springer 01.09.2013
• Subjects: Autism; Biofeedback training; Enterprise resource planning; Psychophysiology; Social aspects
• ISSN: 1090-0586; 1573-3270

Clinically, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) involves ubiquitous developmental difficulties consisting of measurable deficits in social interaction and communication. Marked constraints in the ability to perceive and register stimuli have been related to an individual's capacity to engage in communication with others. Atypical processing of external cues and information has been related to a dysfunction of neural processes associated with over- or under-stimulation, with hypersensitivity being a more common symptom of autism. Our previous investigations have demonstrated the capability of event-related potentials (ERPs) to display deviations between ASD and neurotypical subjects during visual oddball paradigm tasks (Sokhadze et al. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 2009, 34:37-51). In particular, we showed differences in early ERP components indicative of a low discrimination capacity between target and non-target stimuli resulting in higher magnitude of N100 and delayed cognitive P300 potential in ASD as compared to controls. In the current study we used auditory oddball task to investigate whether similar between-group differences will show in auditory modality. In this pilot study we enrolled six individuals with ASD diagnosis (mean 25.7 years) and eight control subjects (20.9 years). Auditory oddball used two sounds (target 20%, standard 80%), where the participant pressed a key in response to only the target tone. We did not find any differences in reaction time and accuracy. Early ERP component (N100, 80-140 ms post-stimulus) was more negative both to targets (p = 0.012), and standards (p = 0.016), in ASD as compared to the control group. There were no group differences in the amplitude of the cento-parietal P300 component, but the latency of P300 was significantly more prolonged in the ASD group (p = 0.027). Therefore, our auditory oddball study supported our prior findings in visual modality oddball task. Specifically, by showing that the main differences appear at the early sensory processing stage, featured by over-processing of both task-relevant and task-irrelevant items that result in a delayed processing of targets. One of our objectives was also to test applicability of auditory oddball task with both early and late ERP component recordings as potential psychophysiological functional outcomes. Keywords * Autism * ERP * Auditory processing