Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29871826›Full record

ArticleHearing research2018

Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation.

Gavin M Bidelman, Mary Katherine Davis, Megan H Pridgen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Hearing research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Hearing in categories aids speech streaming at the "cocktail party".bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Listening loops and the adapting auditory brain.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Dichotic listening deficits in amblyaudia are characterized by aberrant neural oscillations in auditory cortex.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gavin M BidelmanSchool of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA; Institute for Intelligent Systems, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA; University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Memphis, TN, USA. Electronic address: g.bidelman@memphis.edu.
Mary Katherine DavisSchool of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
Megan H PridgenSchool of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA.
University of Memphis · USUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

Neuroimaging biomarkers of speech processing deficits in MCIR01DC016267 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS · PI BIDELMAN, GAVIN M. · 2018 to 2022
$2.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC016267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Everyday speech perception is challenged by external acoustic interferences that hinder verbal communication. Here, we directly compared how different levels of the auditory system (brainstem vs. cortex) code speech and how their neural representations are affected by two acoustic stressors: noise and reverberation. We recorded multichannel (64 ch) brainstem frequency-following responses (FFRs) and cortical event-related potentials (ERPs) simultaneously in normal hearing individuals to speech sounds presented in mild and moderate levels of noise and reverb. We matched signal-to-noise and direct-to-reverberant ratios to equate the severity between classes of interference. Electrode recordings were parsed into source waveforms to assess the relative contribution of region-specific brain areas [i.e., brainstem (BS), primary auditory cortex (A1), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG)]. Results showed that reverberation was less detrimental to (and in some cases facilitated) the neural encoding of speech compared to additive noise. Inter-regional correlations revealed associations between BS and A1 responses, suggesting subcortical speech representations influence higher auditory-cortical areas. Functional connectivity analyses further showed that directed signaling toward A1 in both feedforward cortico-collicular (BS→A1) and feedback cortico-cortical (IFG→A1) pathways were strong predictors of degraded speech perception and differentiated "good" vs. "poor" perceivers. Our findings demonstrate a functional interplay within the brain's speech network that depends on the form and severity of acoustic interference. We infer that in addition to the quality of neural representations within individual brain regions, listeners' success at the "cocktail party" is modulated based on how information is transferred among subcortical and cortical hubs of the auditory-linguistic network.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain StemPerceptual MaskingSpeech AcousticsSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationAdultAuditory CortexAuditory PathwaysBrain StemComprehensionElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMaleNoiseSpeech IntelligibilityAuditory scene analysisDistributed source analysisEvent-related potentials (ERPs)Frequency-following response (FFR)Functional connectivitySpeech processing

Identifiers

PMID29871826
PMCPMC6105463
OpenAlexW2803206022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.