Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34256138›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2021

Frontotemporal activation differs between perception of simulated cochlear implant speech and speech in background noise: An image-based fNIRS study.

Jessica Defenderfer, Samuel Forbes, Sobanawartiny Wijeakumar, Mark Hedrick, Patrick Plyler, Aaron T Buss

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2021. 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
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Brain-Behavior Associations During Interactions Between Caregivers and Infants.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessica DefenderferSpeech and Hearing Science, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN, United States. Electronic address: jdefende@uthsc.edu.
Samuel ForbesPsychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England. Electronic address: samuel.forbes@uea.ac.uk.
Sobanawartiny WijeakumarPsychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Electronic address: sobanawartiny.wijeakumar@nottingham.ac.uk.
Mark HedrickSpeech and Hearing Science, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN, United States. Electronic address: mhedric1@uthsc.edu.
Patrick PlylerSpeech and Hearing Science, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Knoxville, TN, United States. Electronic address: pplyler@uthsc.edu.
Aaron T BussPsychology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, United States. Electronic address: abuss@utk.edu.
University of Tennessee at Knoxville · USUniversity of East Anglia · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Tennessee Health Science Center · US

Funding

Pharmacogenetic Determinants of Vincristine Toxicity and ResponseR01HD062484 · NICHD · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI RENBARGER, JAMIE L · 2011 to 2016
$3.1M
The neurocognitive dynamics of learning and executive functionR01HD092485 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE · PI BUSS, AARON T · 2018 to 2022
$1.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD062484NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD092485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study we used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to investigate neural responses in normal-hearing adults as a function of speech recognition accuracy, intelligibility of the speech stimulus, and the manner in which speech is distorted. Participants listened to sentences and reported aloud what they heard. Speech quality was distorted artificially by vocoding (simulated cochlear implant speech) or naturally by adding background noise. Each type of distortion included high and low-intelligibility conditions. Sentences in quiet were used as baseline comparison. fNIRS data were analyzed using a newly developed image reconstruction approach. First, elevated cortical responses in the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and middle frontal gyrus (MFG) were associated with speech recognition during the low-intelligibility conditions. Second, activation in the MTG was associated with recognition of vocoded speech with low intelligibility, whereas MFG activity was largely driven by recognition of speech in background noise, suggesting that the cortical response varies as a function of distortion type. Lastly, an accuracy effect in the MFG demonstrated significantly higher activation during correct perception relative to incorrect perception of speech. These results suggest that normal-hearing adults (i.e., untrained listeners of vocoded stimuli) do not exploit the same attentional mechanisms of the frontal cortex used to resolve naturally degraded speech and may instead rely on segmental and phonetic analyses in the temporal lobe to discriminate vocoded speech.

Indexed as

Cochlear ImplantsAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultFemaleFrontal LobeHumansMaleNoiseSpectroscopy, Near-InfraredSpeech IntelligibilitySpeech PerceptionTemporal LobeYoung AdultCochlear implantsEvent-related designfNIRSImage reconstructionNeuroDOTPost-lingual deafnessSentence processingSpeech recognitionVocoded speech

Identifiers

PMID34256138
PMCPMC8503862
OpenAlexW3177607020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.