ArticleBrain research2019
Brainstem correlates of concurrent speech identification in adverse listening conditions.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing differential effects of periodicity and predictability in auditory rhythmic cueing of concurrent speech.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
- Dominant mid-to-high-frequency harmonics predict neural encoding and perception of concurrent vowels with large f0 differences.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2025Article
- Short- and long-term neuroplasticity interact during the perceptual learning of concurrent speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- Objective discrimination of bimodal speech using frequency following responses.Hearing research · 2023Article
- Duplex perception reveals brainstem auditory representations are modulated by listeners' ongoing percept for speech.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2023Article
- Duplex perception reveals brainstem auditory representations are modulated by listeners' ongoing percept for speech.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Perceptual warping exposes categorical representations for speech in human brainstem responses.NeuroImage · 2023Article
- Objective Detection of the Speech Frequency Following Response (sFFR): A Comparison of Two Methods.Audiology research · 2022Article
- Article
- Subcortical rather than cortical sources of the frequency-following response (FFR) relate to speech-in-noise perception in normal-hearing listeners.Neuroscience letters · 2021Article
- High gamma cortical processing of continuous speech in younger and older listeners.NeuroImage · 2020Article
- Afferent-efferent connectivity between auditory brainstem and cortex accounts for poorer speech-in-noise comprehension in older adults.Hearing research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.