Literature DB >> 26113025

Auditory-neurophysiological responses to speech during early childhood: Effects of background noise.

Travis White-Schwoch1, Evan C Davies1, Elaine C Thompson1, Kali Woodruff Carr1, Trent Nicol1, Ann R Bradlow2, Nina Kraus3.   

Abstract

Early childhood is a critical period of auditory learning, during which children are constantly mapping sounds to meaning. But this auditory learning rarely occurs in ideal listening conditions-children are forced to listen against a relentless din. This background noise degrades the neural coding of these critical sounds, in turn interfering with auditory learning. Despite the importance of robust and reliable auditory processing during early childhood, little is known about the neurophysiology underlying speech processing in children so young. To better understand the physiological constraints these adverse listening scenarios impose on speech sound coding during early childhood, auditory-neurophysiological responses were elicited to a consonant-vowel syllable in quiet and background noise in a cohort of typically-developing preschoolers (ages 3-5 yr). Overall, responses were degraded in noise: they were smaller, less stable across trials, slower, and there was poorer coding of spectral content and the temporal envelope. These effects were exacerbated in response to the consonant transition relative to the vowel, suggesting that the neural coding of spectrotemporally-dynamic speech features is more tenuous in noise than the coding of static features-even in children this young. Neural coding of speech temporal fine structure, however, was more resilient to the addition of background noise than coding of temporal envelope information. Taken together, these results demonstrate that noise places a neurophysiological constraint on speech processing during early childhood by causing a breakdown in neural processing of speech acoustics. These results may explain why some listeners have inordinate difficulties understanding speech in noise. Speech-elicited auditory-neurophysiological responses offer objective insight into listening skills during early childhood by reflecting the integrity of neural coding in quiet and noise; this paper documents typical response properties in this age group. These normative metrics may be useful clinically to evaluate auditory processing difficulties during early childhood.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Auditory development; Auditory processing; Electrophysiology; FFR; Speech recognition in noise; cABR

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26113025      PMCID: PMC4581952          DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2015.06.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hear Res        ISSN: 0378-5955            Impact factor:   3.208


  52 in total

1.  Spondee recognition in a two-talker masker and a speech-shaped noise masker in adults and children.

Authors:  Joseph W Hall; John H Grose; Emily Buss; Madhu B Dev
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Neurobiologic responses to speech in noise in children with learning problems: deficits and strategies for improvement.

Authors:  J Cunningham; T Nicol; S G Zecker; A Bradlow; N Kraus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  Investigating speech perception in children with dyslexia: is there evidence of a consistent deficit in individuals?

Authors:  Souhila Messaoud-Galusi; Valerie Hazan; Stuart Rosen
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2011-09-19       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  What is the role of the medial olivocochlear system in speech-in-noise processing?

Authors:  Jessica de Boer; A Roger D Thornton; Katrin Krumbholz
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-12-07       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Why middle-aged listeners have trouble hearing in everyday settings.

Authors:  Dorea Ruggles; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 10.834

6.  Temporal and speech processing deficits in auditory neuropathy.

Authors:  F G Zeng; S Oba; S Garde; Y Sininger; A Starr
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  1999-11-08       Impact factor: 1.837

7.  Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms.

Authors:  Judy H Song; Erika Skoe; Karen Banai; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 5.357

8.  Children's phoneme identification in reverberation and noise.

Authors:  C E Johnson
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.297

9.  Consequences of neural asynchrony: a case of auditory neuropathy.

Authors:  N Kraus; A R Bradlow; M A Cheatham; J Cunningham; C D King; D B Koch; T G Nicol; T J Mcgee; L K Stein; B A Wright
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2000-08

10.  Human hearing enhanced by noise.

Authors:  F G Zeng; Q J Fu; R Morse
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2000-06-30       Impact factor: 3.252

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Unraveling the Biology of Auditory Learning: A Cognitive-Sensorimotor-Reward Framework.

Authors:  Nina Kraus; Travis White-Schwoch
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2015-10-08       Impact factor: 20.229

2.  Auditory neurophysiological development in early childhood: A growth curve modeling approach.

Authors:  Elaine C Thompson; Ryne Estabrook; Jennifer Krizman; Spencer Smith; Stephanie Huang; Travis White-Schwoch; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-06-20       Impact factor: 4.861

3.  Neural encoding of voice pitch and formant structure at birth as revealed by frequency-following responses.

Authors:  Sonia Arenillas-Alcón; Jordi Costa-Faidella; Teresa Ribas-Prats; María Dolores Gómez-Roig; Carles Escera
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Rhythm, reading, and sound processing in the brain in preschool children.

Authors:  Silvia Bonacina; Stephanie Huang; Travis White-Schwoch; Jennifer Krizman; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  NPJ Sci Learn       Date:  2021-06-29
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.