Literature DB >> 20371812

Neural timing is linked to speech perception in noise.

Samira Anderson1, Erika Skoe, Bharath Chandrasekaran, Nina Kraus.   

Abstract

Understanding speech in background noise is challenging for every listener, including those with normal peripheral hearing. This difficulty is attributable in part to the disruptive effects of noise on neural synchrony, resulting in degraded representation of speech at cortical and subcortical levels as reflected by electrophysiological responses. These problems are especially pronounced in clinical populations such as children with learning impairments. Given the established effects of noise on evoked responses, we hypothesized that listening-in-noise problems are associated with degraded processing of timing information at the brainstem level. Participants (66 children; ages, 8-14 years; 22 females) were divided into groups based on their performance on clinical measures of speech-in-noise (SIN) perception and reading. We compared brainstem responses to speech syllables between top and bottom SIN and reading groups in the presence and absence of competing multitalker babble. In the quiet condition, neural response timing was equivalent between groups. In noise, however, the bottom groups exhibited greater neural delays relative to the top groups. Group-specific timing delays occurred exclusively in response to the noise-vulnerable formant transition, not to the more perceptually robust, steady-state portion of the stimulus. These results demonstrate that neural timing is disrupted by background noise and that greater disruptions are associated with the inability to perceive speech in challenging listening conditions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20371812      PMCID: PMC2862599          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0107-10.2010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  37 in total

1.  The case of the missing pitch templates: how harmonic templates emerge in the early auditory system.

Authors:  S Shamma; D Klein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues.

Authors:  Kelly L Tremblay; Michael Piskosz; Pamela Souza
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2002-10-28       Impact factor: 1.837

3.  Brainstem responses to speech syllables.

Authors:  Nicole Russo; Trent Nicol; Gabriella Musacchia; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 4.  Improving language and literacy is a matter of time.

Authors:  Paula Tallal
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 34.870

5.  Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise.

Authors:  Catherine M Warrier; Krista L Johnson; Erin A Hayes; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Infant discrimination of rapid auditory cues predicts later language impairment.

Authors:  April A Benasich; Paula Tallal
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2002-10-17       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Speaking clearly for children with learning disabilities: sentence perception in noise.

Authors:  Ann R Bradlow; Nina Kraus; Erin Hayes
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 8.  Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial.

Authors:  Erika Skoe; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.570

9.  A comparison of the effects of broadband masking noise on the auditory brainstem response in young and older adults.

Authors:  Robert F Burkard; Donald Sims
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.493

10.  Auditory training improves neural timing in the human brainstem.

Authors:  Nicole M Russo; Trent G Nicol; Steven G Zecker; Erin A Hayes; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2005-01-06       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  80 in total

1.  Cross-phaseogram: objective neural index of speech sound differentiation.

Authors:  Erika Skoe; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.390

2.  Spatial selective auditory attention in the presence of reverberant energy: individual differences in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2010-12-03

Review 3.  Objective neural indices of speech-in-noise perception.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2010-06

4.  Predicting perception in noise using cortical auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Garnett P McMillan; Tina M Penman; Sun Mi Gille
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-13

5.  Age-related hearing loss increases full-brain connectivity while reversing directed signaling within the dorsal-ventral pathway for speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Md Sultan Mahmud; Mohammed Yeasin; Dawei Shen; Stephen R Arnott; Claude Alain
Journal:  Brain Struct Funct       Date:  2019-07-25       Impact factor: 3.270

Review 6.  Subcortical pathways: Towards a better understanding of auditory disorders.

Authors:  Richard A Felix; Boris Gourévitch; Christine V Portfors
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 3.208

7.  The ability to move to a beat is linked to the consistency of neural responses to sound.

Authors:  Adam Tierney; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 6.167

8.  Auditory Training: Evidence for Neural Plasticity in Older Adults.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Perspect Hear Hear Disord Res Res Diagn       Date:  2013-05

9.  Unstable representation of sound: a biological marker of dyslexia.

Authors:  Jane Hornickel; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-02-20       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Adaptive temporal encoding leads to a background-insensitive cortical representation of speech.

Authors:  Nai Ding; Jonathan Z Simon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.