Self-masking and overlap-masking from reverberation using the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response

Osman, Rida Al; Dajani, Hilmi R.; Giguère, Christian

doi:10.1121/1.5017522

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But why is a similar desynchronization to speech not observed in reverberation? Animal recordings (Sayles and Winter, 2008) and previous human FFR studies (Al Osman et al, 2017; Bidelman and Krishnan, 2010) show that speech cues are more easily maintained at the neural level in 15 reverb compared to noise (for review, see Bidelman, 2017). Some investigators have also postulated that neurons in the brainstem inferior colliculus—the putative generator of scalp FFRs (Bidelman, 2018; Smith et al, 1975)—might perform a neural compensation that mitigates the negative effects of reverb and target signal representations (Slama and Delgutte, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Everyday speech perception is challenged by external acoustic interferences that hinder verbal communication. Here, we directly compared how different levels of the auditory system (brainstem vs. cortex) code speech and how their neural representations are affected by two acoustic stressors: noise and reverberation. We recorded multichannel (64 ch) brainstem frequency-following responses (FFRs) and cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) simultaneously in normal hearing individuals to speech sounds presented in mild and moderate levels of noise and reverb. We matched signal-to-noise and direct-to-reverberant ratios to equate the severity between classes of interference. Electrode recordings were parsed into source waveforms to assess the relative contribution of region-specific brain areas [i.e., brainstem (BS), primary auditory cortex (A1), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)]. Results showed that reverberation was less detrimental to (and in some cases facilitated) the neural encoding of speech compared to additive noise. Inter-regional correlations revealed associations between BS and A1 responses, suggesting subcortical speech representations influence higher auditory-cortical areas. Functional connectivity analyses further showed that directed signaling toward A1 in both feedforward cortico-collicular (BS→A1) and feedback cortico-cortical (IFG→A1) pathways were strong predictors of degraded speech perception and differentiated "good" vs. "poor" perceivers. Our findings demonstrate a functional interplay within the brain's speech network that depends on the form and severity of acoustic interference. We infer that in addition to the quality of neural representations within individual brain regions, listeners' success at the "cocktail party" is modulated based on how information is transferred among subcortical and cortical hubs of the auditory-linguistic network.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, we examined concurrent vowel processing in different levels of noise interference (quiet vs. +5 dB SNR) to evaluate how the neural encoding of spectro-temporal cues is affected by noise at a subcortical level. Despite ample FFR studies using isolated speech sounds (e.g., vowels, stop consonants) (Al Osman et al, 2017; Anderson and Kraus, 2010; Bidelman and Krishnan, 2010; Hornickel et al, 2009; Krishnan, 2002; Parbery-Clark et al, 2009b), to our knowledge, this is the first to examine brainstem encoding of concurrent speech mixtures in human auditory system using FFRs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brainstem correlates of concurrent speech identification in adverse listening conditions

Yellamsetty

Bidelman

2019

Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When two voices compete, listeners can segregate and identify concurrent speech sounds using pitch (fundamental frequency, F0) and timbre (harmonic) cues. Speech perception is also hindered by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). How clear and degraded concurrent speech sounds are represented at early, pre-attentive stages of the auditory system is not well understood. To this end, we measured scalp-recorded frequency-following responses (FFR) from the EEG while human listeners heard two concurrently presented, steady-state (time-invariant) vowels whose F0 differed by zero or four semitones (ST) presented diotically in either clean (no noise) or noise-degraded ( + 5dB SNR) conditions. Listeners also performed a speeded double vowel identification task in which they were required to identify both vowels correctly. Behavioral results showed that speech identification accuracy increased with F0 differences between vowels, and this perceptual F0 benefit was larger for clean compared to noise degraded ( + 5dB SNR) stimuli. Neurophysiological data demonstrated more robust FFR F0 amplitudes for single compared to double vowels and considerably weaker responses in noise. F0 amplitudes showed speech-on-speech masking effects, along with a non-linear constructive interference at 0ST, and suppression effects at 4ST. Correlations showed that FFR F0 amplitudes failed to predict listeners’ identification accuracy. In contrast, FFR F1 amplitudes were associated with faster reaction times, although this correlation was limited to noise conditions. The limited number of brain-behavior associations suggests subcortical activity mainly reflects exogenous processing rather than perceptual correlates of concurrent speech perception. Collectively, our results demonstrate that FFRs reflect pre-attentive coding of concurrent auditory stimuli that only weakly predict the success of identifying concurrent speech.

show abstract

“…They demonstrated that speech-evoked brainstem and early cortical responses were degraded more by noise than reverberation. Previous physiological studies (Al Osman et al, 2017;Bidelman & Krishnan, 2010;Sayles & Winter, 2008) have also shown better preservation of neural representation in reverberation compared to noise (Bidelman, 2017, review). It remains unclear if these differences simply reflect fundamental differences in the extent to which spectrotemporal pitch-relevant acoustic features are disrupted and/or the relative effectiveness of masking mechanisms under both noise and reverberation.…”

Section: Experience-dependent Enhancement In Pitch Representation Is mentioning

confidence: 89%

Tone language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in brainstem and auditory cortex is maintained under reverberation

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term language and music experience enhances neural representation of temporal attributes of pitch in the brainstem and auditory cortex in favorable listening conditions. Herein we examine whether brainstem and cortical pitch mechanisms-shaped by long-term language experiencemaintain this advantage in the presence of reverberation-induced degradation in pitch representation. Brainstem frequency following responses (FFR) and cortical pitch responses (CPR) were recorded concurrently from Chinese and English-speaking natives, using a Mandarin word exhibiting a high rising pitch (/yi 2 /). Stimuli were presented diotically in quiet (Dry), and in the presence of Slight, Mild, and Moderate reverberation conditions. Regardless of language group, the amplitude of both brainstem FFR (F0) and cortical CPR (Na-Pb) responses decreased with increases in reverberation. Response amplitude for Chinese, however, was larger than English in all reverberant conditions. The Chinese group also exhibited a robust rightward asymmetry at temporal electrode sites (T8 > T7) across stimulus conditions. Regardless of language group, direct comparison of brainstem and cortical responses revealed similar magnitude of change in response amplitude with increasing reverberation. These findings suggest that experiencedependent brainstem and cortical pitch mechanisms provide an enhanced and stable neural representation of pitch-relevant information that is maintained even in the presence of reverberation. Relatively greater degradative effects of reverberation on brainstem (FFR) compared to cortical (Na-Pb) responses suggest relatively stronger top-down influences on CPRs.

show abstract

Self-masking and overlap-masking from reverberation using the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation

Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation

Brainstem correlates of concurrent speech identification in adverse listening conditions

Tone language experience-dependent advantage in pitch representation in brainstem and auditory cortex is maintained under reverberation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About