| Literature DB >> 35493942 |
Dongxin Liu1, Jiong Hu2, Songjian Wang1, Xinxing Fu1, Yuan Wang1, Esther Pugh3, Jennifer Henderson Sabes2, Shuo Wang1.
Abstract
Aging and language background have been shown to affect pitch information encoding at the subcortical level. To study the individual and compounded effects on subcortical pitch information encoding, Frequency Following Responses were recorded from subjects across various ages and language backgrounds. Differences were found in pitch information encoding strength and accuracy among the groups, indicating that language experience and aging affect accuracy and magnitude of pitch information encoding ability at the subcortical level. Moreover, stronger effects of aging were seen in the magnitude of phase-locking in the native language speaker groups, while language background appears to have more impact on the accuracy of pitch tracking in older adult groups.Entities:
Keywords: aging; brainstem; frequency following response (FFR); language background; pitch coding; pitch correlation; pitch strength
Year: 2022 PMID: 35493942 PMCID: PMC9043765 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.816100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
FIGURE 1Comparison of FFR waveforms in different groups. Temporal waveforms of the original stimulus/yi4/(left panel) and of the grand-average FFR of all four groups (right panel). FFR waveforms were plotted as Amplitude (in μV) as a function of Time (in ms). ENY, English younger; ENO, English older; CHY, Chinese younger; CHO, Chinese older.
FIGURE 2Comparison of FFR spectrograms in different groups. Spectrograms of the original stimulus/yi4/(left panel) and of the grand-average of FFR of all four groups (right panel). Spectrograms were plotted in Frequency (in Hz) as a function of Time (ms) and the colored heatmap represents spectral energy (nV).
FIGURE 3Pitch Strength of the four groups. Pitch Strength in RAU values obtained from all four groups, elicited by/yi4/. Boxes represent the interquartile ranges with whisker bars indicating the data ranges. Number of asterisks indicate levels of statistical significance between groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively).
FIGURE 4Pitch Correlation of the four groups. Pitch Correlation in RAU values obtained from all four groups, elicited by/yi4/. Boxes represent the interquartile range with whisker bars indicating the data ranges. Asterisks indicate statistical significance found in the factor of language experience (p < 0.0001, respectively).
Post hoc group comparisons on pitch strength in RAU.
| CHY vs. CHO | CHY vs. ENY | CHY vs. ENO | CHO vs. ENY | CHO vs. ENO | ENY vs. ENO | ||
| Pitch strength (RAU) | Adjusted | 0.0029* | 0.0004** | 0.0001*** | 0.9939 | 0.9463 | 0.8727 |
Number of asterisks indicate levels of statistical significance between groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively).