Literature DB >> 22302814

Psychophysiological analyses demonstrate the importance of neural envelope coding for speech perception in noise.

Jayaganesh Swaminathan1, Michael G Heinz.   

Abstract

Understanding speech in noisy environments is often taken for granted; however, this task is particularly challenging for people with cochlear hearing loss, even with hearing aids or cochlear implants. A significant limitation to improving auditory prostheses is our lack of understanding of the neural basis for robust speech perception in noise. Perceptual studies suggest the slowly varying component of the acoustic waveform (envelope, ENV) is sufficient for understanding speech in quiet, but the rapidly varying temporal fine structure (TFS) is important in noise. These perceptual findings have important implications for cochlear implants, which currently only provide ENV; however, neural correlates have been difficult to evaluate due to cochlear transformations between acoustic TFS and recovered neural ENV. Here, we demonstrate the relative contributions of neural ENV and TFS by quantitatively linking neural coding, predicted from a computational auditory nerve model, with perception of vocoded speech in noise measured from normal hearing human listeners. Regression models with ENV and TFS coding as independent variables predicted speech identification and phonetic feature reception at both positive and negative signal-to-noise ratios. We found that: (1) neural ENV coding was a primary contributor to speech perception, even in noise; and (2) neural TFS contributed in noise mainly in the presence of neural ENV, but rarely as the primary cue itself. These results suggest that neural TFS has less perceptual salience than previously thought due to cochlear signal processing transformations between TFS and ENV. Because these transformations differ between normal and impaired ears, these findings have important translational implications for auditory prostheses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22302814      PMCID: PMC3297360          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4493-11.2012

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


  54 in total

1.  Phoneme recognition by cochlear implant users as a function of signal-to-noise ratio and nonlinear amplitude mapping.

Authors:  Q J Fu; R V Shannon
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.840

2.  Encoding frequency modulation to improve cochlear implant performance in noise.

Authors:  Kaibao Nie; Ginger Stickney; Fan-Gang Zeng
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.538

3.  Speech recognition with amplitude and frequency modulations.

Authors:  Fan-Gang Zeng; Kaibao Nie; Ginger S Stickney; Ying-Yee Kong; Michael Vongphoe; Ashish Bhargave; Chaogang Wei; Keli Cao
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-01-27       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  The ability of listeners to use recovered envelope cues from speech fine structure.

Authors:  Gaëtan Gilbert; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Correlation index: a new metric to quantify temporal coding.

Authors:  Philip X Joris; Dries H Louage; Liesbeth Cardoen; Marcel van der Heijden
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2006-04-27       Impact factor: 3.208

6.  Unexceptional sharpness of frequency tuning in the human cochlea.

Authors:  Mario A Ruggero; Andrei N Temchin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-12-12       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Pseudospontaneous activity: stochastic independence of auditory nerve fibers with electrical stimulation.

Authors:  J T Rubinstein; B S Wilson; C C Finley; P J Abbas
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.208

8.  Speech recognition in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss as a function of the number of spectral channels.

Authors:  Deniz Başkent
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Modeling auditory-nerve responses for high sound pressure levels in the normal and impaired auditory periphery.

Authors:  Muhammad S A Zilany; Ian C Bruce
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Neural population coding of sound level adapts to stimulus statistics.

Authors:  Isabel Dean; Nicol S Harper; David McAlpine
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2005-11-06       Impact factor: 24.884

View more
  40 in total

1.  Revisiting place and temporal theories of pitch.

Authors:  Andrew J Oxenham
Journal:  Acoust Sci Technol       Date:  2013

2.  The neural encoding of formant frequencies contributing to vowel identification in normal-hearing listeners.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Kelly Tremblay; Christopher G Clinard; Richard A Wright; Elad Sagi; Mario Svirsky
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  The use of confusion patterns to evaluate the neural basis for concurrent vowel identification.

Authors:  Ananthakrishna Chintanpalli; Michael G Heinz
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  The ability of cochlear implant users to use temporal envelope cues recovered from speech frequency modulation.

Authors:  Jong Ho Won; Christian Lorenzi; Kaibao Nie; Xing Li; Elyse M Jameyson; Ward R Drennan; Jay T Rubinstein
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Predictions of Speech Chimaera Intelligibility Using Auditory Nerve Mean-Rate and Spike-Timing Neural Cues.

Authors:  Michael R Wirtzfeld; Rasha A Ibrahim; Ian C Bruce
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2017-07-26

Review 6.  The Physiologic and Psychophysical Consequences of Severe-to-Profound Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Pamela Souza; Eric Hoover
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2018-10-26

7.  Speech perception in simulated electric hearing exploits information-bearing acoustic change.

Authors:  Christian E Stilp; Matthew J Goupell; Keith R Kluender
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  On the balance of envelope and temporal fine structure in the encoding of speech in the early auditory system.

Authors:  Shihab Shamma; Christian Lorenzi
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  Effects of hearing loss on the subcortical representation of speech cues.

Authors:  Samira Anderson; Alexandra Parbery-Clark; Travis White-Schwoch; Sarah Drehobl; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 1.840

10.  Differences in postinjury auditory system pathophysiology after mild blast and nonblast acute acoustic trauma.

Authors:  Nicholas Race; Jesyin Lai; Riyi Shi; Edward L Bartlett
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.