Literature DB >> 30240514

Phase-locked responses to the vowel envelope vary in scalp-recorded amplitude due to across-frequency response interactions.

Vijayalakshmi Easwar1,2, Ashlee Banyard3, Steven J Aiken4, David W Purcell2,3.   

Abstract

Neural encoding of the envelope of sounds like vowels is essential to access temporal information useful for speech recognition. Subcortical responses to envelope periodicity of vowels can be assessed using scalp-recorded envelope following responses (EFRs); however, the amplitude of EFRs vary by vowel spectra and the causal relationship is not well understood. One cause for spectral dependency could be interactions between responses with different phases, initiated by multiple stimulus frequencies. Phase differences can arise from earlier initiation of processing high frequencies relative to low frequencies in the cochlea. This study investigated the presence of such phase interactions by measuring EFRs to two naturally spoken vowels (/ε/ and /u/), while delaying the envelope phase of the second formant band (F2+) relative to the first formant (F1) band in 45° increments. At 0° F2+ phase delay, EFRs elicited by the vowel /ε/ were lower in amplitude than the EFRs elicited by /u/. Using vector computations, we found that the lower amplitude of /ε/-EFRs was caused by linear superposition of F1- and F2+-contributions with larger F1-F2+ phase differences (166°) compared to /u/ (19°). While the variation in amplitude across F2+ phase delays could be modeled with two dominant EFR sources for both vowels, the degree of variation was dependent on F1 and F2+ EFR characteristics. Together, we demonstrate that (a) broadband sounds like vowels elicit independent responses from different stimulus frequencies that may be out-of-phase and affect scalp-based measurements, and (b) delaying higher frequency formants can maximize EFR amplitudes for some vowels.
© 2018 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  zzm321990EEGzzm321990; envelope following response; formants; fundamental frequency; vowel

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30240514     DOI: 10.1111/ejn.14161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Neurosci        ISSN: 0953-816X            Impact factor:   3.386


  5 in total

1.  The Accuracy of Envelope Following Responses in Predicting Speech Audibility.

Authors:  Vijayalakshmi Easwar; Jen Birstler; Adrienne Harrison; Susan Scollie; David Purcell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2020 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.570

2.  Assessing Cochlear-Place Specific Temporal Coding Using Multi-Band Complex Tones to Measure Envelope-Following Responses.

Authors:  Le Wang; Hari Bharadwaj; Barbara Shinn-Cunningham
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.590

3.  Chirp Analyzer for Estimating Amplitude and Latency of Steady-State Auditory Envelope Following Responses.

Authors:  Eduardo Martinez-Montes; Yalina Garcia-Puente; Matias Zanartu; Pavel Prado-Gutierrez
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 3.802

4.  The Influence of Sensation Level on Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses.

Authors:  Vijayalakshmi Easwar; Jen Birstler; Adrienne Harrison; Susan Scollie; David Purcell
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2022 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 3.562

5.  The influence of phoneme contexts on adaptation in vowel-evoked envelope following responses.

Authors:  Vijayalakshmi Easwar; Lauren Chung
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2022-08-14       Impact factor: 3.698

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.