| Literature DB >> 36017182 |
Payam Shahsavari Baboukani1, Carina Graversen2,3, Emina Alickovic4,5, Jan Østergaard1.
Abstract
Objectives: Comprehension of speech in adverse listening conditions is challenging for hearing-impaired (HI) individuals. Noise reduction (NR) schemes in hearing aids (HAs) have demonstrated the capability to help HI to overcome these challenges. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of NR processing (inactive, where the NR feature was switched off, vs. active, where the NR feature was switched on) on correlates of listening effort across two different background noise levels [+3 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and +8 dB SNR] by using a phase synchrony analysis of electroencephalogram (EEG) signals. Design: The EEG was recorded while 22 HI participants fitted with HAs performed a continuous speech in noise (SiN) task in the presence of background noise and a competing talker. The phase synchrony within eight regions of interest (ROIs) and four conventional EEG bands was computed by using a multivariate phase synchrony measure.Entities:
Keywords: electroencephalography; hearing impaired; listening effort; local connectivity; noise reduction; phase synchrony
Year: 2022 PMID: 36017182 PMCID: PMC9396236 DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.932959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurosci ISSN: 1662-453X Impact factor: 5.152
Figure 1Schematic illustration of (A) experiment design including six loudspeakers. The target streams (colored as purple and orange) and background noise (colored as blue) were delivered by the two foreground and four background loudspeakers, respectively. The screen located in the middle of the two foreground speakers shows the to-be-attended talker (colored as orange). (B) trial design in which 5 s of only background noise and 33 s of simultaneous target, masker, and background noise stimuli were delivered in each trial.
Figure 2In the electrode position of ROIs, different colors show different ROIs. The lines in the figure show schematic presentations of the ROIs. The ROIs include left frontal (dark blue), frontal (aqua), right frontal (light blue), left temporal (yellow), central (green), right temporal (red), parietal (orange), and occipital (brown).
Mapping electroencephalogram (EEG) electrodes to regions of interest (ROIs).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Left frontal | AF7, AF3, F3 | Frontal | Fp1, Fp2, AF4 |
| F5, F7, Fp1 | AF3, F1, F2 | ||
| Right frontal | AF4, AF8, F8 | Central | FC1, FC2, C1 |
| F6, F4, Fp2 | CP1, C2, CP2 | ||
| Left temporal | FT7, T7, TP7 | Parietal | CP1, CP2, P1 |
| CP5, FC5, C5 | P2, PO4, PO3 | ||
| Right temporal | FT8, T8, TP8 | Occipital | O1, O2, PO3 |
| CP6, FC6, C6 | PO4 |
P-values of the two-way LMM ANOVA. (A) P-values for interaction between two factors SNR and NR. (B) P-values of the main factor SNR. (C) P-values of the main factor NR. The two factors are SNR values, +3 dB and +8 dB, and NR schemes, on and off. The boldface numbers show the rejection of the null hypothesis. The significance level was Bonferroni corrected, .
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Delta | 0.3083 | 0.9577 | 0.9004 | 0.2891 | 0.7109 | 0.0086 | 0.5054 | 0.6982 |
| Theta | 0.5986 | 0.9038 | 0.8941 | 0.2419 | 0.8460 | 0.0098 | 0.1991 | 0.8890 |
| Alpha | 0.5811 | 0.7302 | 0.6898 | 0.1370 | 0.5116 |
| 0.04 | 0.6041 |
| Beta | 0.6868 | 0.3757 | 0.5041 | 0.2295 | 0.8981 | 0.0033 | 0.1544 | 0.7814 |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Delta | 0.6430 | 0.1143 | 0.0535 | 0.6862 | 0.4565 | 0.7421 | 0.9075 | 0.7022 |
| Theta | 0.4882 | 0.0497 | 0.5245 | 0.3467 | 0.8811 | 0.4504 | 0.1736 | 0.9586 |
| Alpha | 0.6072 | 0.1096 | 0.6841 | 0.8241 | 0.8235 | 0.6635 | 0.0981 | 0.1719 |
| Beta | 0.2794 | 0.0757 | 0.9245 | 0.4805 | 0.6725 | 0.9951 | 0.0260 | 0.3742 |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Delta | 0.5015 | 0.8633 | 0.7418 | 0.4164 | 0.8241 | 0.6195 | 0.6881 | 0.5722 |
| Theta | 0.7668 | 0.9642 | 0.5383 | 0.4872 | 0.6733 | 0.3703 | 0.8001 | 0.8816 |
| Alpha | 0.6963 | 0.7806 | 0.2371 | 0.7766 | 0.6075 | 0.4634 | 0.5812 | 0.2326 |
| Beta | 0.7135 | 0.5241 | 0.2805 | 0.8134 | 0.7648 | 0.7150 | 0.8649 | 0.4089 |
P-values of the one-way LMM ANOVA. (A) P-values for the quadratic term. (B) P-values for the linear term. The local connectivity at different ROIs and bands is independently modeled by different listening conditions. The conditions are +3 dB inactive (+3 dB), +8 dB inactive (+8 dB), +3 dB active (9.24 dB), and +8 dB active (13.17 dB). The boldface numbers show the rejection of the null hypothesis. The significance level was Bonferroni corrected, .
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Delta | 0.3358 | 0.9458 | 0.9256 | 0.3253 | 0.6948 | 0.0094 | 0.4790 | 0.6577 |
| Theta | 0.6181 | 0.9998 | 0.9405 | 0.2151 | 0.8761 | 0.0129 | 0.2118 | 0.8773 |
| Alpha | 0.6061 | 0.7128 | 0.6102 | 0.1282 | 0.5417 |
| 0.0593 | 0.5358 |
| Beta | 0.7114 | 0.4093 | 0.5719 | 0.2195 | 0.9201 | 0.0035 | 0.1618 | 0.8435 |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Delta | 0.3699 | 0.2595 | 0.3415 | 0.6413 | 0.7490 | 0.4511 | 0.7277 | 0.5054 |
| Theta | 0.8699 | 0.2342 | 0.9215 | 0.2923 | 0.65551 | 0.6869 | 0.5770 | 0.8868 |
| Alpha | 0.9773 | 0.2288 | 0.5105 | 0.7980 | 0.7522 | 0.3106 | 0.6534 | 0.9599 |
| Beta | 0.3135 | 0.0942 | 0.3961 | 0.5875 | 0.9849 | 0.6326 | 0.2555 | 0.9071 |
Figure 3Parietal alpha local connectivity is regressed based on different listening conditions. The analysis is performed by single trial data and the red points show the average over all trials and all subjects for different listening conditions.
Figure 4Parietal alpha local connectivity is regressed based on different listening conditions. The analysis is performed by average over trials data. The black points in the figure show the average over trials for subjects and the red points show the average over black points for different listening conditions.