Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses: Effects of Background, Stimulus Duration, Consonant–Vowel, and Number of Epochs

Abstract

This is the first study that systematically investigated the clinical feasibility of speech-ABRs in terms of stimulus duration, background noise, and number of epochs. Speech-ABRs can be reliably recorded to the 40 msec [da] without compromising response quality even when presented in background noise. Because fewer epochs were needed for the 40 msec [da], this would be the optimal stimulus for clinical use. Finally, given that there was no effect of consonant-vowel on speech-ABR peak latencies, there is no evidence that speech-ABRs are suitable for assessing auditory discrimination of the stimuli used.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal.

Speech-ABRs in cochlear implant recipients: feasibility study

“…Speech-ABR studies on normal-hearing adults and children have shown that speech-ABRs (i) follow the spectral and temporal features of the stimulus used to evoke them, therefore may be a good candidate for an objective outcome measure of brainstem speech encoding (e.g. Johnson, Nicol, and Kraus 2005;Kraus and Nicol 2005;Chandrasekaran and Kraus 2010;BinKhamis et al 2019); (ii) are recordable from infancy to older adulthood and repeatable within and across sessions (e.g. Song, Nicol, and Kraus 2011a;Hornickel, Knowles, and Kraus 2012;Skoe et al 2015) and (iii) addition of background noise results in reduced response amplitude, delayed response timing, and overall degradation in response quality.…”

“…smaller amplitudes, delayed timing) due to background noise performed worse on behavioural speech-innoise measures, suggesting that speech-ABRs may be a good candidate for an objective measure of behavioural speech-in-noise performance (e.g. Anderson et al 2011;Parbery-Clark, Strait, and Kraus 2011;Song, Skoe, Banai and Kraus 2011b;BinKhamis et al 2019).…”

Speech auditory brainstem responses in adult hearing aid users: Effects of aiding and background noise, and prediction of behavioral measures

“…The speech-ABR is a measure of brainstem speech encoding, which can be measured both in quiet and in background noise, is repeatable within and across sessions, and can be recorded from infancy to older adulthood (e.g., BinKhamis et al, 2019;Hornickel, Knowles, & Kraus, 2012;Kraus & Nicol, 2005;Skoe, Krizman, Anderson, & Kraus, 2015;Song, Nicol, & Kraus, 2011). There are several terms that are used to describe speech-ABRs, and these include complex-ABR (c-ABR), envelope following responses (EFRs), or frequency following responses (FFRs; e.g., Ananthakrishnan, Krishnan, & Bartlett, 2016;Anderson, Parbery-Clark, White-Schwoch, Drehobl, & Kraus, 2013;Jenkins, Fodor, Presacco, & Anderson, 2018;Karawani, Jenkins, & Anderson, 2018;.…”

“…The term speech-ABR is used in this study as it is the term commonly used for brainstem responses to CV stimuli (e.g., Akhoun et al, 2008;Bellier et al, 2015;Elkabariti, Khalil, Husein, & Talaat, 2014;Koravand, AlOsman, Rivest, & Poulin, 2017;Song, Nicol, et al, 2011). It has been shown that speech-ABRs in adults and children with normal hearing follow the spectral and temporal features of the CV stimulus used to evoke them (e.g., BinKhamis et al, 2019;Russo, Nicol, Musacchia, & Kraus, 2004;Song, Nicol, et al, 2011). In addition, speech-ABR waveform components are dependent on the CV stimuli used to evoke them.…”

“…It has also been shown that speech-ABRs in adults and children with normal hearing are affected by the addition of background noise, where the addition of noise results in (a) delay in response timing (latencies), (b) reduction in response amplitudes; (c) reduction in F0 amplitude, and (d) reduced accuracy and fidelity of the overall response in following the spectral and temporal features of the stimulus (e.g., BinKhamis et al, 2019;Parbery-Clark, Marmel, Bair, & Kraus, 2011;Song, Nicol, et al, 2011;Song, Skoe, Banai, & Kraus, 2011). These effects of background noise have been shown to be more pronounced within the speech-ABR onset peaks (V and A) and the EFR period evoked by the vowel formant transitions (peaks D, E, and F, and F0) than in the sustained EFR period evoked by the steady-state vowel (e.g., BinKhamis et al, 2019;Parbery-Clark et al, 2011;Song, Nicol, et al, 2011;Song, Skoe, et al, 2011). Thus, speech-ABRs may be used to assess the influence of background noise on speech detection in individuals with normal hearing.…”