Literature DB >> 22199192

Auditory long latency responses to tonal and speech stimuli.

Shannon Swink1, Andrew Stuart.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The effects of type of stimuli (i.e., nonspeech vs. speech), speech (i.e., natural vs. synthetic), gender of speaker and listener, speaker (i.e., self vs. other), and frequency alteration in self-produced speech on the late auditory cortical evoked potential were examined.
METHOD: Young adult men (n = 15) and women (n = 15), all with normal hearing, participated. P1-N1-P2 components were evoked with the following stimuli: 723-Hz tone bursts; naturally produced male and female /a/ tokens; synthetic male and female /a/ tokens; an /a/ token self-produced by each participant; and the same /a/ token produced by the participant but with a shift in frequency.
RESULTS: In general, P1-N1-P2 component latencies were significantly shorter when evoked with the tonal stimulus versus speech stimuli and natural versus synthetic speech (p < .05). Women had significantly shorter latencies for only the P2 component (p < .05). For the tonal versus speech stimuli, P1 amplitudes were significantly smaller, and N1 and P2 amplitudes were significantly larger (p < .05). There was no significant effect of gender on the P1, N1, or P2 amplitude (p > .05).
CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with the notion that spectrotemporal characteristics of nonspeech and speech stimuli affect P1-N1-P2 latency and amplitude components.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22199192     DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0364)

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res        ISSN: 1092-4388            Impact factor:   2.297


  8 in total

1.  Signal type and signal-to-noise ratio interact to affect cortical auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Leslie D Grush
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Neural tracking of the speech envelope is differentially modulated by attention and language experience.

Authors:  Rachel Reetzke; G Nike Gnanateja; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2020-12-05       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Speech Perception with Noise Vocoding and Background Noise: An EEG and Behavioral Study.

Authors:  Yue Dong; Yan Gai
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2021-04-13

Review 4.  Vowels and Consonants in the Brain: Evidence from Magnetoencephalographic Studies on the N1m in Normal-Hearing Listeners.

Authors:  Anna Dora Manca; Mirko Grimaldi
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-09-22

5.  Monitoring auditory cortical plasticity in hearing aid users with long latency auditory evoked potentials: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Renata Aparecida Leite; Fernanda Cristina Leite Magliaro; Jeziela Cristina Raimundo; Ricardo Ferreira Bento; Carla Gentile Matas
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 2.365

6.  Development of Aided Long-Latency Response (ALLR) in Children With Cochlear Implant Within 18 Months of Implantation.

Authors:  Theertha Dinesh K C; Megha Sasidharan
Journal:  J Int Adv Otol       Date:  2021-09       Impact factor: 1.017

7.  Effects of Natural Versus Synthetic Consonant and Vowel Stimuli on Cortical Auditory-Evoked Potential.

Authors:  Hyunwook Song; Seungik Jeon; Yerim Shin; Woojae Han; Saea Kim; Chanbeom Kwak; Eunsung Lee; Jinsook Kim
Journal:  J Audiol Otol       Date:  2021-12-30

8.  Auditory Evoked Potentials with Different Speech Stimuli: a Comparison and Standardization of Values.

Authors:  Dayane Domeneghini Didoné; Sheila Jacques Oppitz; Jordana Folgearini; Eliara Pinto Vieira Biaggio; Michele Vargas Garcia
Journal:  Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.