These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Brainstem auditory responses to resolved and unresolved harmonics of a synthetic vowel in quiet and noise.
    Author: Laroche M, Dajani HR, Prévost F, Marcoux AM.
    Journal: Ear Hear; 2013; 34(1):63-74. PubMed ID: 22814487.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study investigated speech auditory brainstem responses (speech ABR) with variants of a synthetic vowel in quiet and in background noise. Its objectives were to study the noise robustness of the brainstem response at the fundamental frequency F0 and at the first formant F1, evaluate how the resolved/unresolved harmonics regions in speech contribute to the response at F0, and investigate the origin of the response at F0 to resolved and unresolved harmonics in speech. DESIGN: In total, 18 normal-hearing subjects (11 women, aged 18-33 years) participated in this study. Speech ABRs were recorded using variants of a 300 msec formant-synthesized /a/ vowel in quiet and in white noise. The first experiment employed three variants containing the first three formants F1 to F3, F1 only, and F2 and F3 only with relative formant levels following those reported in the literature. The second experiment employed three variants containing F1 only, F2 only, and F3 only, with the formants equalized to the same level and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) maintained at -5 dB. Overall response latency was estimated, and the amplitude and local SNR of the envelope following response at F0 and of the frequency following response at F1 were compared for the different stimulus variants in quiet and in noise. RESULTS: The response at F0 was more robust to noise than that at F1. There were no statistically significant differences in the response at F0 caused by the three stimulus variants in both experiments in quiet. However, the response at F0 with the variant dominated by resolved harmonics was more robust to noise than the response at F0 with the stimulus variants dominated by unresolved harmonics. The latencies of the responses in all cases were very similar in quiet, but the responses at F0 due to resolved and unresolved harmonics combined nonlinearly when both were present in the stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: Speech ABR has been suggested as a marker of central auditory processing. The results of this study support earlier work on the differential susceptibility to noise of the F0 and F1 components of the evoked response. In the case of F0, the results support the view that in speech, the pitch of resolved harmonics and that of unresolved harmonics are processed in different but interacting pathways that converge in the upper brainstem. Pitch plays an important role in speech perception, and speech ABR can offer a window into the neural extraction of the pitch of speech and how it may change with hearing impairment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]