ArticleHearing research2018
Brainstem-cortical functional connectivity for speech is differentially challenged by noise and reverberation.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Speech in noise prediction by use of cortical auditory evoked potentials in normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Functional benefits of continuous vs. categorical listening strategies on the neural encoding and perception of noise-degraded speech.Brain research · 2024Article
- Sensory and Perceptual Decisional Processes Underlying the Perception of Reverberant Auditory Environments.eNeuro · 2024Article
- Hearing in categories aids speech streaming at the "cocktail party".bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Short- and long-term neuroplasticity interact during the perceptual learning of concurrent speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Myogenic artifacts masquerade as neuroplasticity in the auditory frequency-following response.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Listening loops and the adapting auditory brain.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Continuous dynamics in behavior reveal interactions between perceptual warping in categorization and speech-in-noise perception.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Early Development of Neural Speech Encoding Depends on Age but Not Native Language Status: Evidence From Lexical Tone.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Speech to noise ratio improvement induces nonlinear parietal phase synchrony in hearing aid users.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Article
- Enhanced brainstem phase-locking in low-level noise reveals stochastic resonance in the frequency-following response (FFR).Brain research · 2021Review
- 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 · 2021Article
- Article
- Auditory cortex is susceptible to lexical influence as revealed by informational vs. energetic masking of speech categorization.Brain research · 2021Article
- Lexical Influences on Categorical Speech Perception Are Driven by a Temporoparietal Circuit.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2021Article
- Defining the Role of Attention in Hierarchical Auditory Processing.Audiology research · 2021Review
- Subcortical rather than cortical sources of the frequency-following response (FFR) relate to speech-in-noise perception in normal-hearing listeners.Neuroscience letters · 2021Article
- When and How Does the Auditory Cortex Influence Subcortical Auditory Structures? New Insights About the Roles of Descending Cortical Projections.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.