Literature DB >> 9657596

The effects of broadband noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/.

K A Whiting1, B A Martin, D R Stapells.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically investigate in normal-hearing listeners the effects of decreased audibility produced by broadband noise masking on the cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) N1, N2, and P3 to the speech sounds /ba/ and /da/.
DESIGN: Ten normal-hearing adult listeners actively (button-press response) discriminated the speech sounds /ba/ and /da/ presented in quiet (no masking) or with broadband masking noise (BBN), using an ERP oddball paradigm. The BBN was presented at 50, 60, and 70 dB SPL when speech sounds were presented at 65 dB ppe SPL and at 60, 70 and, 80 dB SPL when speech sounds were presented at 80 dB ppe SPL.
RESULTS: On average, the 50, 60, 70, and 80 dB SPL BBN maskers produced behavioral threshold elevations of 18, 25, 35, and 48 dB (average for 250 to 4000 Hz), respectively. The BBN maskers produced significant decreases (relative to quiet condition) in ERP amplitudes and behavioral discriminability. These decreases did not occur, however, until the noise masker intensity (in dB SPL) was equal to or greater than the speech stimulus intensity (in dB ppe SPL), that is, until speech to noise ratios (SNRs) were < or = 0 dB. N1 remained present even after N2, P3, and behavioral discriminability were absent. In contrast to amplitudes, ERP and behavioral latencies showed significant decreases at higher (better) SNRs. Significant latency increases occurred when the noise maskers were within 10 to 20 dB of the stimuli (i.e., SNR < or = 20 dB). The effects of masking were greater for responses to /da/ compared with /ba/. Latency increases occurred with less masking for N1 than for P3 or behavioral reaction time, with N2 falling in between.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that decreased audibility as a result of masking affects the various ERP peaks in a differential manner and that latencies are more sensitive indicators of these masking effects than are amplitudes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9657596     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199806000-00005

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


  33 in total

1.  Learning impaired children exhibit timing deficits and training-related improvements in auditory cortical responses to speech in noise.

Authors:  Catherine M Warrier; Krista L Johnson; Erin A Hayes; Trent Nicol; Nina Kraus
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-04-06       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Keri O Bennett; Michelle R Molis; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.570

3.  Predicting perception in noise using cortical auditory evoked potentials.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Garnett P McMillan; Tina M Penman; Sun Mi Gille
Journal:  J Assoc Res Otolaryngol       Date:  2013-09-13

4.  Electrophysiological responses to lateral shifts are not consistent with opponent-channel processing of interaural level differences.

Authors:  Erol J Ozmeral; David A Eddins; Ann Clock Eddins
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Neural encoding and perception of speech signals in informational masking.

Authors:  Keri O'Connell Bennett; Curtis J Billings; Michelle R Molis; Marjorie R Leek
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Aided cortical auditory evoked potentials in response to changes in hearing aid gain.

Authors:  Curtis J Billings; Kelly L Tremblay; Christi W Miller
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.117

7.  Aided Electrophysiology Using Direct Audio Input: Effects of Amplification and Absolute Signal Level.

Authors:  Ingyu Chun; Curtis J Billings; Christi W Miller; Kelly L Tremblay
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  Adaptive temporal encoding leads to a background-insensitive cortical representation of speech.

Authors:  Nai Ding; Jonathan Z Simon
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Sensitivity of the human auditory cortex to acoustic degradation of speech and non-speech sounds.

Authors:  Ismo Miettinen; Hannu Tiitinen; Paavo Alku; Patrick J C May
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 3.288

10.  Effects of background noise on cortical encoding of speech in autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Nicole Russo; Steven Zecker; Barbara Trommer; Julia Chen; Nina Kraus
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2009-04-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.