Literature DB >> 26655914

Acoustic Cue Weighting by Adults with Cochlear Implants: A Mismatch Negativity Study.

Aaron C Moberly1, Jyoti Bhat, Antoine J Shahin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Formant rise time (FRT) and amplitude rise time (ART) are acoustic cues that inform phonetic identity. FRT represents the rate of transition of the formant(s) to a steady state, while ART represents the rate at which the sound reaches its peak amplitude. Normal-hearing (NH) native English speakers weight FRT more than ART during the perceptual labeling of the /ba/-/wa/ contrast. This weighting strategy is reflected neurophysiologically in the magnitude of the mismatch negativity (MMN)-MMN is larger during the FRT than the ART distinction. The present study examined the neurophysiological basis of acoustic cue weighting in adult cochlear implant (CI) listeners using the MMN design. It was hypothesized that individuals with CIs who weight ART more in behavioral labeling (ART users) would show larger MMNs during the ART than the FRT contrast, and the opposite would be seen for FRT users.
DESIGN: Electroencephalography was recorded while 20 adults with CIs listened passively to combinations of 3 synthetic speech stimuli: a /ba/ with /ba/-like FRT and ART; a /wa/ with /wa/-like FRT and ART; and a /ba/ stimulus with /ba/-like FRT and /wa/-like ART. The MMN response was elicited during the FRT contrast by having participants passively listen to a train of /wa/ stimuli interrupted occasionally by /ba/ stimuli, and vice versa. For the ART contrast, the same procedure was implemented using the /ba/ and /ba/ stimuli.
RESULTS: Both ART and FRT users with CIs elicited MMNs that were equal in magnitudes during FRT and ART contrasts, with the exception that FRT users exhibited MMNs for ART and FRT contrasts that were temporally segregated. That is, their MMNs occurred significantly earlier during the ART contrast (~100 msec following sound onset) than during the FRT contrast (~200 msec). In contrast, the MMNs for ART users of both contrasts occurred later and were not significantly separable in time (~230 msec). Interestingly, this temporal segregation observed in FRT users is consistent with the MMN behavior in NH listeners.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that listeners with CIs who learn to classify phonemes based on formant dynamics, consistent with NH listeners, develop a strategy similar to NH listeners, in which the organization of the amplitude and spectral representations of phonemes in auditory memory are temporally segregated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26655914      PMCID: PMC4899308          DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000257

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  40 in total

1.  Electrophysiological evidence for parallel and serial processing during visual search.

Authors:  S J Luck; S A Hillyard
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1990-12

2.  Do adults with cochlear implants rely on different acoustic cues for phoneme perception than adults with normal hearing?

Authors:  Aaron C Moberly; Joanna H Lowenstein; Eric Tarr; Amanda Caldwell-Tarr; D Bradley Welling; Antoine J Shahin; Susan Nittrouer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Is it really a mismatch negativity? An assessment of methods for determining response validity in individual subjects.

Authors:  T McGee; N Kraus; T Nicol
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-07

4.  Stop-consonant and vowel perception in 3- and 4-year-old children.

Authors:  R N Ohde; K L Haley
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  Language experience modulates weighting of acoustic cues for vowel perception: an event-related potential study.

Authors:  Silvia C Lipski; Paola Escudero; Titia Benders
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2012-02-15       Impact factor: 4.016

6.  Predicting developmental shifts in perceptual weighting schemes.

Authors:  S Nittrouer; M E Miller
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Information in speech: observations on the perception of [s]-stop clusters.

Authors:  P J Bailey; Q Summerfield
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Measurement of mismatch negativity in individuals: a study using single-trial analysis.

Authors:  D V M Bishop; M J Hardiman
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 4.016

9.  Results of cochlear implantation in patients with severe to profound hearing loss--implications for patient selection.

Authors:  J Kiefer; C von Ilberg; B Reimer; R Knecht; V Gall; G Diller; E Stürzebecher; T Pfennigdorff; A Spelsberg
Journal:  Audiology       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec

Review 10.  Neurophysiologic bases of speech discrimination.

Authors:  N Kraus; T McGee; T D Carrell; A Sharma
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.570

View more
  2 in total

1.  Individual Variations in Effort: Assessing Pupillometry for the Hearing Impaired.

Authors:  Anita E Wagner; Leanne Nagels; Paolo Toffanin; Jane M Opie; Deniz Başkent
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.293

2.  Neural Mechanisms of Hearing Recovery for Cochlear-Implanted Patients: An Electroencephalogram Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Songjian Wang; Meng Lin; Liwei Sun; Xueqing Chen; Xinxing Fu; LiLi Yan; Chunlin Li; Xu Zhang
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 4.677

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.