Linear combination of auditory steady-state responses evoked by co-modulated tones

The Influence of Male- and Female-Spoken Vowel Acoustics on Envelope-Following Responses

The influence of male and female vowel characteristics on the envelope-following responses (EFRs) is not well understood. This study explored the role of vowel characteristics on the EFR at the fundamental frequency (f0) in response to the vowel /ε/ (as in "head"). Vowel tokens were spoken by five males and five females and EFRs were measured in 25 young adults (21 females). An auditory model was used to estimate changes in auditory processing that might account for talker effects on EFR amplitude. There were several differences between male and female vowels in relation to the EFR. For male talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the bandwidth and harmonic count of the first formant, and the amplitude of the trough below the second formant. For female talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the range of f0 frequencies and the amplitude of the trough above the second formant. The model suggested that the f0 EFR reflects a wide distribution of energy in speech, with primary contributions from high-frequency harmonics mediated from cochlear regions basal to the peaks of the first and second formants, not from low-frequency harmonics with energy near f0. Vowels produced by female talkers tend to produce lower-amplitude EFR, likely because they depend on higher-frequency harmonics where speech sound levels tend to be lower. This work advances auditory electrophysiology by showing how the EFR evoked by speech relates to the acoustics of speech, for both male and female voices.

The Accuracy of Envelope Following Responses in Predicting Speech Audibility

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to (1) evaluate the accuracy of envelope following responses (EFRs) in predicting speech audibility as a function of the statistical indicator used for objective response detection, stimulus phoneme, frequency, and level, and (2) quantify the minimum sensation level (SL; stimulus level above behavioral threshold) needed for detecting EFRs.

DESIGN

In 21 participants with normal hearing, EFRs were elicited by 8 band-limited phonemes in the male-spoken token /susa∫i/ (2.05 sec) presented between 20 and 65 dB SPL in 15 dB increments. Vowels in /susa∫i/ were modified to elicit two EFRs simultaneously by selectively lowering the fundamental frequency (f0) in the first formant (F1) region. The modified vowels elicited one EFR from the low-frequency F1 and another from the mid-frequency second and higher formants (F2+). Fricatives were amplitude-modulated at the average f0. EFRs were extracted from single-channel EEG recorded between the vertex (Cz) and the nape of the neck when /susa∫i/ was presented monaurally for 450 sweeps. The performance of the three statistical indicators, F-test, Hotelling's T, and phase coherence, was compared against behaviorally determined audibility (estimated SL, SL ≥0 dB = audible) using area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve, sensitivity (the proportion of audible speech with a detectable EFR [true positive rate]), and specificity (the proportion of inaudible speech with an undetectable EFR [true negative rate]). The influence of stimulus phoneme, frequency, and level on the accuracy of EFRs in predicting speech audibility was assessed by comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV; the proportion of detected EFRs elicited by audible stimuli) and negative predictive value (NPV; the proportion of undetected EFRs elicited by inaudible stimuli). The minimum SL needed for detection was evaluated using a linear mixed-effects model with the predictor variables stimulus and EFR detection p value.

RESULTS

of the 3 statistical indicators were similar; however, at the type I error rate of 5%, the sensitivities of Hotelling's T (68.4%) and phase coherence (68.8%) were significantly higher than the F-test (59.5%). In contrast, the specificity of the F-test (97.3%) was significantly higher than the Hotelling's T (88.4%). When analyzed using Hotelling's T as a function of stimulus, fricatives offered higher sensitivity (88.6 to 90.6%) and NPV (57.9 to 76.0%) compared with most vowel stimuli (51.9 to 71.4% and 11.6 to 51.3%, respectively). When analyzed as a function of frequency band (F1, F2+, and fricatives aggregated as low-, mid- and high-frequencies, respectively), high-frequency stimuli offered the highest sensitivity (96.9%) and NPV (88.9%). When analyzed as a function of test level, sensitivity improved with increases in stimulus level (99.4% at 65 dB SPL). The minimum SL for EFR detection ranged between 13.4 and 21.7 dB for F1 stimuli, 7.8 to 12.2 dB for F2+ stimuli, and 2.3 to 3.9 dB for fricative stimuli.

CONCLUSIONS

EFR-based inference of speech audibility requires consideration of the statistical indicator used, phoneme, stimulus frequency, and stimulus level.

Human Frequency Following Responses to Filtered Speech

OBJECTIVES

There is increasing interest in using the frequency following response (FFR) to describe the effects of varying different aspects of hearing aid signal processing on brainstem neural representation of speech. To this end, recent studies have examined the effects of filtering on brainstem neural representation of the speech fundamental frequency (f0) in listeners with normal hearing sensitivity by measuring FFRs to low- and high-pass filtered signals. However, the stimuli used in these studies do not reflect the entire range of typical cutoff frequencies used in frequency-specific gain adjustments during hearing aid fitting. Further, there has been limited discussion on the effect of filtering on brainstem neural representation of formant-related harmonics. Here, the effects of filtering on brainstem neural representation of speech fundamental frequency (f0) and harmonics related to first formant frequency (F1) were assessed by recording envelope and spectral FFRs to a vowel low-, high-, and band-pass filtered at cutoff frequencies ranging from 0.125 to 8 kHz.

DESIGN

FFRs were measured to a synthetically generated vowel stimulus /u/ presented in a full bandwidth and low-pass (experiment 1), high-pass (experiment 2), and band-pass (experiment 3) filtered conditions. In experiment 1, FFRs were measured to a synthetically generated vowel stimulus /u/ presented in a full bandwidth condition as well as 11 low-pass filtered conditions (low-pass cutoff frequencies: 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 kHz) in 19 adult listeners with normal hearing sensitivity. In experiment 2, FFRs were measured to the same synthetically generated vowel stimulus /u/ presented in a full bandwidth condition as well as 10 high-pass filtered conditions (high-pass cutoff frequencies: 0.125, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, and 6 kHz) in 7 adult listeners with normal hearing sensitivity. In experiment 3, in addition to the full bandwidth condition, FFRs were measured to vowel /u/ low-pass filtered at 2 kHz, band-pass filtered between 2-4 kHz and 4-6 kHz in 10 adult listeners with normal hearing sensitivity. A Fast Fourier Transform analysis was conducted to measure the strength of f0 and the F1-related harmonic relative to the noise floor in the brainstem neural responses obtained to the full bandwidth and filtered stimulus conditions.

RESULTS

Brainstem neural representation of f0 was reduced when the low-pass filter cutoff frequency was between 0.25 and 0.5 kHz; no differences in f0 strength were noted between conditions when the low-pass filter cutoff condition was at or greater than 0.75 kHz. While envelope FFR f0 strength was reduced when the stimulus was high-pass filtered at 6 kHz, there was no effect of high-pass filtering on brainstem neural representation of f0 when the high-pass filter cutoff frequency ranged from 0.125 to 4 kHz. There was a weakly significant global effect of band-pass filtering on brainstem neural phase-locking to f0. A trends analysis indicated that mean f0 magnitude in the brainstem neural response was greater when the stimulus was band-pass filtered between 2 and 4 kHz as compared to when the stimulus was band-pass filtered between 4 and 6 kHz, low-pass filtered at 2 kHz or presented in the full bandwidth condition. Last, neural phase-locking to f0 was reduced or absent in envelope FFRs measured to filtered stimuli that lacked spectral energy above 0.125 kHz or below 6 kHz. Similarly, little to no energy was seen at F1 in spectral FFRs obtained to low-, high-, or band-pass filtered stimuli that did not contain energy in the F1 region. For stimulus conditions that contained energy at F1, the strength of the peak at F1 in the spectral FFR varied little with low-, high-, or band-pass filtering.

CONCLUSIONS

Energy at f0 in envelope FFRs may arise due to neural phase-locking to low-, mid-, or high-frequency stimulus components, provided the stimulus envelope is modulated by at least two interacting harmonics. Stronger neural responses at f0 are measured when filtering results in stimulus bandwidths that preserve stimulus energy at F1 and F2. In addition, results suggest that unresolved harmonics may favorably influence f0 strength in the neural response. Lastly, brainstem neural representation of the F1-related harmonic measured in spectral FFRs obtained to filtered stimuli is related to the presence or absence of stimulus energy at F1. These findings add to the existing literature exploring the viability of the FFR as an objective technique to evaluate hearing aid fitting where stimulus bandwidth is altered by design due to frequency-specific gain applied by amplification algorithms.