Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children - PubMed (original) (raw)

Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children

Courtney Stevens et al. Brain Res. 2008.

Abstract

Recent proposals suggest that some interventions designed to improve language skills might also target or train selective attention. The present study examined whether six weeks of high-intensity (100 min/day) training with a computerized intervention program designed to improve language skills would also influence neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention previously shown to be deficient in children with specific language impairment (SLI). Twenty children received computerized training, including 8 children diagnosed with SLI and 12 children with typically developing language. An additional 13 children with typically developing language received no specialized training (NoTx control group) but were tested and retested after a comparable time period to control for maturational and test-retest effects. Before and after training (or a comparable delay period for the NoTx control group), children completed standardized language assessments and an event-related brain potential (ERP) measure of selective auditory attention. Relative to the NoTx control group, children receiving training showed increases in standardized measures of receptive language. In addition, children receiving training showed larger increases in the effects of attention on neural processing following training relative to the NoTx control group. The enhanced effect of attention on neural processing represented a large effect size (Cohen's d=0.8), and was specific to changes in signal enhancement of attended stimuli. These findings indicate that the neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention, previously shown to be deficient in children with SLI, can be remediated through training and can accompany improvements on standardized measures of language.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Schematic representation of the ERP selective auditory attention paradigm.

Figure 2

Scores on the CELF receptive language composite. All values are represented in standard score units. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. (a) Receptive language composite scores for the FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control groups, separately for pre- and post-testing. (b) Change in receptive language composite score from pre- to post-testing for the FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control groups. The FFW-LI group showed significant increases from pre- to post-testing, with the FFW-TD group showing a similar trend. The NoTx control group did not show changes from pre- to post-testing.

Figure 3

Scores on the CELF-3 expressive language composite. All values are represented in standard score units. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. (a) Expressive language composite scores for the FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control groups, separately for pre- and post-testing. (b) Change in expressive language composite score from pre- to post-testing for the FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control group. Gains were not significantly different across groups.

Figure 4

Grand average ERP waveforms from the selective auditory attention paradigm show the effects of attention on sensorineural processing. Top row shows data from time 1 (pre-intervention) and bottom row shows data from time 2 (post-intervention or, for no treatment controls, at retest following a comparable period of time) for each of the three groups: FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control. ERPs to probes in the attended channel are shown in solid lines and ERPs to probes in the unattended channel are shown in dashed lines. Shading indicates the attention effect. Negative is plotted up.

Figure 5

Magnitude of the ERP attention effect at pre- and post-testing for FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control groups. The attention effect was measured as mean amplitude from 100–200 msec of the attended minus unattended channel. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. (a) ERP attention effect for the FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control groups, separately for pre- and post-testing. (b) Change in attention effect from pre- to post-testing for the combined FFW-LI, FFW-TD, and NoTx control group. The FFW-LI group showed significant increases from pre- to post-testing, with the FFW-TD group showing a similar trend. The NoTx control group did not show changes from pre- to post-testing.

Figure 6

Change in mean amplitude of ERP response (100–200 msec) to attended and unattended probes in children receiving FFW training (combined group of children with SLI and typically developing children, FFW-LI and FFW-TD). Only changes in the response to attended stimuli were significant from pre- to post-testing.

References

1. Asbjørnsen AE, Bryden MP. Auditory attentional shifts in reading-disabled students: Quantification of attentional effectiveness by the Attentional Shift Index. Neuropsychologia. 1998;36:143–148. -PubMed
1. Asbjørnsen AE, Helland T, Obrzut J, Boliek C. The role of dichotic listening performance and tasks of executive functions in reading impairment: A discriminant function analysis. Child Neuropsychology. 2003;9:277–288. -PubMed
1. Atkinson J. Review of human visual development: Crowding and dyslexia. In: Cronly-Dillon J, Stein J, editors. Vision & visual dysfunction. Vol. 13. Vision & Visual Dyslexia; 1991. pp. 44–57.
1. Bavelier D, Tomann A, Hutton C, Mitchell T, Corina D, Liu G, Neville HJ. Visual attention to the periphery is enhanced in congenitally deaf individuals. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2000;20:1–6. -PMC -PubMed
1. Bird G, Catmur C, Silani G, Frith C, Frith U. Attention does not modulate neural responses to social stimuli in autism spectrum disorders. NeuroImage. 2006;31:1614–1624. -PubMed

Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: electrophysiological evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children - PubMed (original) (raw)