PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(04): 232-243
DOI: 10.1055/a-1764-9805
Research Article

Effects of Spectral Shaping on Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses to Stop Consonant-Vowel Syllables

Dania Rishiq
1   Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, The University of South Alabama, Mobile, Alabama
,
Ashley Harkrider
2   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, , Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Cary Springer
3   Research Computing Support, Office of Information Technology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
,
Mark Hedrick
2   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, , Knoxville, Tennessee
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Spectral shaping is employed by hearing aids to make consonantal information, such as formant transitions, audible for listeners with hearing loss. How manipulations of the stimuli, such as spectral shaping, may alter encoding in the auditory brainstem has not been thoroughly studied.

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine how spectral shaping of synthetic consonant-vowel (CV) syllables, varying in their second formant (F2) onset frequency, may affect encoding of the syllables in the auditory brainstem.

Research Design We employed a repeated measure design.

Study Sample Sixteen young adults (mean = 20.94 years, 6 males) and 11 older adults (mean = 58.60 years, 4 males) participated in this study.

Data Collection and Analysis Speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses (speech-ABRs) were obtained from each participant using three CV exemplars selected from synthetic stimuli generated for a /ba-da-ga/ continuum. Brainstem responses were also recorded to corresponding three CV exemplars that were spectrally shaped to decrease low-frequency information and provide gain for middle and high frequencies according to a Desired Sensation Level function. In total, six grand average waveforms (3 phonemes [/ba/, /da/, /ga/] X 2 shaping conditions [unshaped, shaped]) were produced for each participant. Peak latencies and amplitudes, referenced to prestimulus baseline, were identified for 15 speech-ABR peaks. Peaks were marked manually using the program cursor on each individual waveform. Repeated-measures analysis of variances were used to determine the effects of shaping on the latencies and amplitudes of the speech-ABR peaks.

Results Shaping effects produced changes within participants in ABR latencies and amplitudes involving onset and major peaks of the speech-ABR waveform for certain phonemes. Specifically, data from onset peaks showed that shaping decreased latency for /ga/ in older listeners, and decreased amplitude onset for /ba/ in younger listeners. Shaping also increased the amplitudes of major peaks for /ga/ stimuli in both groups.

Conclusions Encoding of speech in the ABR waveform may be more complex and multidimensional than a simple demarcation of source and filter information, and may also be influenced by cue intensity and age. These results suggest a more complex subcortical encoding of vocal tract filter information in the ABR waveform, which may also be influenced by cue intensity and age.

Keywords

speech-evoked auditory brainstem response - subcortical encoding - consonants - spectral shaping - amplification - hearing aids

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. Mai 2019

Angenommen: 04. Februar 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
07. Februar 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. November 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Reliability of the auditory brainstem responses to speech over year in school-age children: A Reply to Drs. McFarland and Cacace. Hear Res 2012; 287 (1–2): 3-5
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Johnson KL, Nicol TG, Kraus N. Brain stem response to speech: a biological marker of auditory processing. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (05) 424-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Johnson KL, Nicol T, Zecker SG, Bradlow AR, Skoe E, Kraus N. Brainstem encoding of voiced consonant–vowel stop syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (11) 2623-2635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bramhall N, Ong B, Ko J, Parker M. Speech perception ability in noise is correlated with auditory brainstem response wave I amplitude. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (05) 509-517
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zhao TC, Kuhl PK. Linguistic effect on speech perception observed at the brainstem. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115 (35) 8716-8721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106 (31) 13022-13027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Korczak PA, Stapells DR. Effects of various articulatory features of speech on cortical event-related potentials and behavioral measures of speech-sound processing. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (04) 491-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Baer T, Moore BC, Gatehouse S. Spectral contrast enhancement of speech in noise for listeners with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on intelligibility, quality, and response times. J Rehabil Res Dev 1993; 30 (01) 49-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lyzenga J, Festen J, Mand Houtgast T. A speech enhancement scheme incorporating spectral expansion evaluated with simulated loss of frequency selectivity J. Acoust. Soc. Am 112 1145, 57
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Mamo SK, Grose JH, Buss E. (2016) Speech-evoked ABR: effects of age and simulated neural temporal jitter. Hear Res 2002; 333: 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Miller RL, Calhoun BM, Young ED. Contrast enhancement improves the representation of /epsilon/-like vowels in the hearing-impaired auditory nerve. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (05) 2693-2708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Simpson AM, Moore BC, Glasberg BR. Spectral enhancement to improve the intelligibility of speech in noise for hearing-impaired listeners. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1990; 469: 101-107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stone MA, Moore BC. Spectral feature enhancement for people with sensorineural hearing impairment: effects on speech intelligibility and quality. J Rehabil Res Dev 1992; 29 (02) 39-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Godoy E, Stylianou Y. Increasing speech intelligibility via spectral shaping with frequency warping and dynamic range compression plus transient enhancement. InINTERSPEECH; 2013: 3572-3576
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Hazan V, Simpson A. Cue-enhancement strategies for natural VCV and sentence materials presented in noise. Speech Hear Lang 1996; 9: 43-55
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Beauchaine KA, Gorga MP, Reiland JK, Larson LL. Application of ABRs to the hearing-aid selection process: preliminary data. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29 (01) 120-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Souza PE, Binns MA. Effects of hearing aid amplification and stimulus intensity on cortical auditory evoked potentials. Audiol Neurotol 2007; 12 (04) 234-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Billings CJ, Papesh MA, Penman TM, Baltzell LS, Gallun FJ. Clinical use of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials as a measure of physiological detection or physiological discrimination. Int J Otolaryngol 2012; 2012: 365752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Anderson S, Kraus N. The potential role of the cABR in assessment and management of hearing impairment. Int J Otolaryngol 2013; 2013: 604729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bandyopadhyay S, Young ED. Discrimination of voiced stop consonants based on auditory nerve discharges. J Neurosci 2004; 24 (02) 531-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bruce IC. Physiological assessment of contrast-enhancing frequency shaping and multiband compression in hearing aids. Physiol Meas 2004; 25 (04) 945-956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Harkrider AW, Plyler PN, Hedrick MS. Effects of age and spectral shaping on perception and neural representation of stop consonant stimuli. Clin Neurophysiol 2005; 116 (09) 2153-2164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. Aging affects neural precision of speech encoding. J Neurosci 2012; 32 (41) 14156-14164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vander Werff KR, Burns KS. Brain stem responses to speech in younger and older adults. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (02) 168-180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Klatt D. Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am 1980; 67: 971-995
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Harkrider AW, Plyler PN, Hedrick MS. Effects of hearing loss and spectral shaping on perception and neural representation of stop consonant stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 915-925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Harkrider AW, Plyler PN, Hedrick MS. Effects of hearing loss and spectral shaping on identification and neural response patterns of stop-consonant stimuli in young adults. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (01) 31-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Presacco A, Jenkins K, Lieberman R, Anderson S. Effects of aging on the encoding of dynamic and static components of speech. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (06) e352-e363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Skoe E, Nicol T, Kraus N. Cross-phaseogram: objective neural index of speech sound differentiation. J Neurosci Methods 2011; 196 (02) 308-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hedrick MS, Schulte L, Jesteadt W. Effect of relative and overall amplitude on perception of voiceless stop consonants by listeners with normal and impaired hearing. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 98 (03) 1292-1303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Benichoux V, Brown AD, Anbuhl KL, Tollin DJ. Representation of multidimensional stimuli: quantifying the most informative stimulus dimension from neural responses. J Neurosci 2017; 37 (31) 7332-7346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kim DO, Sirianni JG, Chang SO. Responses of DCN-PVCN neurons and auditory nerve fibers in unanesthetized decerebrate cats to AM and pure tones: analysis with autocorrelation/power-spectrum. Hear Res 1990; 45 (1-2): 95-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 May BJ, Prell GS, Sachs MB. Vowel representations in the ventral cochlear nucleus of the cat: effects of level, background noise, and behavioral state. J Neurophysiol 1998; 79 (04) 1755-1767
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wang X, Sachs MB. Neural encoding of single-formant stimuli in the cat. II. Responses of anteroventral cochlear nucleus units. Journal of Neurophysiology 1994; Jan 1; 71 (01) 59-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar