It has been suggested that cortical entrainment plays an important role in speech perception by helping to parse the acoustic stimulus into discrete linguistic units. However, the question of whether the entrainment response to speech depends on the intelligibility of the stimulus remains open. Studies addressing this question of intelligibility have, for the most part, significantly distorted the acoustic properties of the stimulus to degrade the intelligibility of the speech stimulus, making it difficult to compare across "intelligible" and "unintelligible" conditions. To avoid these acoustic confounds, we used priming to manipulate the intelligibility of vocoded speech. We used EEG to measure the entrainment response to vocoded target sentences that are preceded by natural speech (nonvocoded) prime sentences that are either valid (match the target) or invalid (do not match the target). For unintelligible speech, valid primes have the effect of restoring intelligibility. We compared the effect of priming on the entrainment response for both 3-channel (unintelligible) and 16-channel (intelligible) speech. We observed a main effect of priming, suggesting that the entrainment response depends on prior knowledge, but not a main effect of vocoding (16 channels vs. 3 channels). Furthermore, we found no difference in the effect of priming on the entrainment response to 3-channel and 16-channel vocoded speech, suggesting that for vocoded speech, entrainment response does not depend on intelligibility. Neural oscillations have been implicated in the parsing of speech into discrete, hierarchically organized units. Our data suggest that these oscillations track the acoustic envelope rather than more abstract linguistic properties of the speech stimulus. Our data also suggest that prior experience with the stimulus allows these oscillations to better track the stimulus envelope.

No abstract

The clinical usefulness of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) remains unclear despite several decades of research. One major contributor to this ambiguity is the wide range of variability across published studies and across individuals within a given study; some results demonstrate expected amplification effects, while others demonstrate limited or no amplification effects. Recent evidence indicates that some of the variability in amplification effects may be explained by distinguishing between experiments that focused on physiological detection of a stimulus versus those that differentiate responses to two audible signals, or physiological discrimination. Herein, we ask if either of these approaches is clinically feasible given the inherent challenges with aided CAEPs. N1 and P2 waves were elicited from 12 noise-masked normal-hearing individuals using hearing-aid-processed 1000-Hz pure tones. Stimulus levels were varied to study the effect of hearing-aid-signal/hearing-aid-noise audibility relative to the noise-masked thresholds. Results demonstrate that clinical use of aided CAEPs may be justified when determining whether audible stimuli are physiologically detectable relative to inaudible signals. However, differentiating aided CAEPs elicited from two suprathreshold stimuli (i.e., physiological discrimination) is problematic and should not be used for clinical decision making until a better understanding of the interaction between hearing-aid-processed stimuli and CAEPs can be established.

Objective To use cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to understand neural encoding in background noise and the conditions under which noise enhances CAEP responses. Methods CAEPs from 16 normal-hearing listeners were recorded using the speech syllable/ba/presented in quiet and speech-shaped noise at signal-to-noise ratios of 10 and 30 dB. The syllable was presented binaurally and monaurally at two presentation rates. Results The amplitudes of N1 and N2 peaks were often significantly enhanced in the presence of low-level background noise relative to quiet conditions, while P1 and P2 amplitudes were consistently reduced in noise. P1 and P2 amplitudes were significantly larger during binaural compared to monaural presentations, while N1 and N2 peaks were similar between binaural and monaural conditions. Conclusions Methodological choices impact CAEP peaks in very different ways. Negative peaks can be enhanced by background noise in certain conditions, while positive peaks are generally enhanced by binaural presentations. Significance Methodological choices significantly impact CAEPs acquired in quiet and in noise. If CAEPs are to be used as a tool to explore signal encoding in noise, scientists must be cognizant of how differences in acquisition and processing protocols selectively shape CAEP responses.