Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30796895›Full record

ArticleBrain research2019

Brainstem correlates of concurrent speech identification in adverse listening conditions.

Anusha Yellamsetty, Gavin M Bidelman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

2 authors.

Anusha YellamsettySchool of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA; Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of South Florida, USA. Electronic address: yellamsettya@usf.edu.
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: gmbdlman@memphis.edu.

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

When two voices compete, listeners can segregate and identify concurrent speech sounds using pitch (fundamental frequency, F0) and timbre (harmonic) cues. Speech perception is also hindered by the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). How clear and degraded concurrent speech sounds are represented at early, pre-attentive stages of the auditory system is not well understood. To this end, we measured scalp-recorded frequency-following responses (FFR) from the EEG while human listeners heard two concurrently presented, steady-state (time-invariant) vowels whose F0 differed by zero or four semitones (ST) presented diotically in either clean (no noise) or noise-degraded (+5dB SNR) conditions. Listeners also performed a speeded double vowel identification task in which they were required to identify both vowels correctly. Behavioral results showed that speech identification accuracy increased with F0 differences between vowels, and this perceptual F0 benefit was larger for clean compared to noise degraded (+5dB SNR) stimuli. Neurophysiological data demonstrated more robust FFR F0 amplitudes for single compared to double vowels and considerably weaker responses in noise. F0 amplitudes showed speech-on-speech masking effects, along with a non-linear constructive interference at 0ST, and suppression effects at 4ST. Correlations showed that FFR F0 amplitudes failed to predict listeners' identification accuracy. In contrast, FFR F1 amplitudes were associated with faster reaction times, although this correlation was limited to noise conditions. The limited number of brain-behavior associations suggests subcortical activity mainly reflects exogenous processing rather than perceptual correlates of concurrent speech perception. Collectively, our results demonstrate that FFRs reflect pre-attentive coding of concurrent auditory stimuli that only weakly predict the success of identifying concurrent speech.

Indexed as

Acoustic StimulationAdultAuditory PerceptionBrain StemCuesElectroencephalographyFemaleHearingHumansMaleNoisePhoneticsPitch PerceptionReaction TimeSpeechSpeech PerceptionDouble-vowel identificationFFRSpeech-in-noise perception

Identifiers

PMID30796895
PMCPMC6727209

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.