Aging and P300 potential responses in noise: A systematic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v14i8.49369Keywords:
Aging, Event-Related Potentials, P300, Noise.Abstract
Introduction: Understanding speech is more difficult in noisy environments and tends to degrade even further with aging. Hearing in noise is a complex process that requires multiple systems, including cognition, which can be assessed through the P300 auditory potential. It is widely believed that speech perception worsens in noise, but this performance varies between individuals, even with similar pure-tone audiograms. Objective: To analyze whether P300 latency and amplitude differ significantly between older and younger adults in quiet and noise. Method: This systematic review searched for observational studies comparing the differences in P300 latency and amplitude results between older and younger adults in quiet and noise, without language or date restrictions, in the following databases: MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, SciELO, Cochrane Central, Embase, LILACS, and Circumpolar Health Bibliographic. Results: The search on the databases found 21,727 results, of which 302 titles were selected. Of these, 61 were excluded due to repeated titles, leaving 241 abstracts to be read. Then, 40 full texts were selected. Next, 37 articles were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, leaving 3 articles eligible. Conclusion: The elderly presented a prolonged mean P300 latency in silence compared to the young. In the presence of noise, the mean P300 latency was prolonged in both groups.
References
Anderer, P., Saletu, B., Semlitsch, H. V., & Pascual-Marqui, R. D. (2003). Non-invasive localization of P300 sources in normal aging and age-associated memory impairment. Neurobiology of Aging, 24(3), 463–479.
Anderson, S., White-Schwoch, T., Parbery-Clark, A., & Kraus, N. (2013). A dynamic auditory-cognitive system supports speech-in-noise perception in older adults. Hearing Research, 300, 18–32.
Bertoli, S., Smurzynski, J., & Probst, R. (2005). Effects of age, age-related hearing loss, and contralateral cafeteria noise on the discrimination of small frequency changes: Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measures. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 6(3), 207–222.
Billings, C. J., & Madsen, B. M. (2018). A perspective on brain-behavior relationships and effects of age and hearing using speech-in-noise stimuli. Hearing Research, 369, 90–102.
Decker, F. M., Jelinek, J., Korb, K., Fogaing Kamgaing, F., Alam, M., Krauss, J. K., Hermann, E. J., & Schwabe, K. (2025). Neural processing of auditory stimuli in rats: Translational aspects using auditory oddball paradigms. Behavioural Brain Research, 482, 115428.
Dirks, D. D., Morgan, D. E., & Dubno, J. R. (1982). A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 114–123.
Farwell, L. A., & Donchin, E. (1988). Talking off the top of your head: Toward a mental prosthesis utilizing event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 70, 510–523.
Gaal, Z. A., Csuhaj, R., & Molnar, M. (2007). Age-dependent changes of auditory evoked potentials–effect of task difficulty. Biological Psychology, 76(3), 196–208.
Goodin, D. S., Squires, K. C., Henderson, B. H., & Starr, A. (1978). Age-related variations in evoked potentials to auditory stimuli in normal human subjects. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 44(4), 447–458.
Helfer, K. S., & Freyman, R. L. (2014). Stimulus and listener factors affecting age-related changes in competing speech perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 136(2), 748–759.
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2016). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 8–73). Wiley.
Karunathilake, I. M. D., Dunlap, J. L., Perera, J., Presacco, A., Decruy, L., Anderson, S., Kuchinsky, S. E., & Simon, J. Z. (2023). Effects of aging on cortical representations of continuous speech. Journal of Neurophysiology, 129(6), 1359–1377.
Kestens, K., Van Yper, L., Degeest, S., & Keppler, H. (2023). The P300 auditory evoked potential: A physiological measure of the engagement of cognitive systems contributing to listening effort? Ear and Hearing, 44(6), 1389–1403.
Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38(3), 557–577.
McCullagh, J., Musiek, F. E., & Shinn, J. B. (2012). Auditory cortical processing in noise in normal-hearing young adults. Audiological Medicine, 10, 114–121.
McCullagh, J., & Shinn, J. B. (2018). Auditory P300 in noise in younger and older adults. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 29(10), 909–916.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097.
Obert, A. D., & Cranford, J. L. (1990). Effects of neocortical lesions on the P300 component of the auditory evoked response. American Journal of Otology, 11(6), 447–453.
Pereira, A. S. et al. (2018). Metodologia da pesquisa científica. [free ebook]. Santa Maria: Editora da UFSM.
Peters, A. (2002). The effects of normal aging on myelin and nerve fibers: A review. Journal of Neurocytology, 31(8–9), 581–593.
Pichora-Fuller, M. K. (2003). Cognitive aging and auditory information processing. International Journal of Audiology, 42, 2S26–2S32.
Picton, T. W. (2010). Human auditory evoked potentials. Plural Publishing.
Polich, J., Howard, L., & Starr, A. (1985). Stimulus frequency and masking as determinants of P300 latency in event-related potentials from auditory stimuli. Biological Psychology, 21(4), 309–318.
Rönnberg, J., Lunner, T., Zekveld, A., Sörqvist, P., Danielsson, H., Lyxell, B., Dahlström, O., Signoret, C., Stenfelt, S., Pichora-Fuller, M. K., & Rudner, M. (2013). The ease of language understanding (ELU) model: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical advances. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 7, 31.
Salisbury, D. F., Desantis, M. A., Shenton, M. E., & McCarley, R. W. (2002). The effect of background noise on P300 to suprathreshold stimuli. Psychophysiology, 39(1), 111–115.
Sellers, E. W., & Donchin, E. (2006). A P300-based brain–computer interface: Initial tests by ALS patients. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117, 538–548.
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Moher, D. (2008). Addressing reporting biases. In J. P. T. Higgins & G. S. Chichester (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (pp. 297–325). Wiley.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ysa Karen dos Santos Macambira, Matheus Carvalho Ferreira, Ana Cláudia Mirândola Barbosa Reis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
