Predicting Perception in Noise Using Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials

  • Curtis J. Billings
  • Garnett P. McMillan
  • Tina M. Penman
  • Sun Mi Gille
Research Article

Abstract

Speech perception in background noise is a common challenge across individuals and health conditions (e.g., hearing impairment, aging, etc.). Both behavioral and physiological measures have been used to understand the important factors that contribute to perception-in-noise abilities. The addition of a physiological measure provides additional information about signal-in-noise encoding in the auditory system and may be useful in clarifying some of the variability in perception-in-noise abilities across individuals. Fifteen young normal-hearing individuals were tested using both electrophysiology and behavioral methods as a means to determine (1) the effects of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal level and (2) how well cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) can predict perception in noise. Three correlation/regression approaches were used to determine how well CAEPs predicted behavior. Main effects of SNR were found for both electrophysiology and speech perception measures, while signal level effects were found generally only for speech testing. These results demonstrate that when signals are presented in noise, sensitivity to SNR cues obscures any encoding of signal level cues. Electrophysiology and behavioral measures were strongly correlated. The best physiological predictors (e.g., latency, amplitude, and area of CAEP waves) of behavior (SNR at which 50 % of the sentence is understood) were N1 latency and N1 amplitude measures. In addition, behavior was best predicted by the 70-dB signal/5-dB SNR CAEP condition. It will be important in future studies to determine the relationship of electrophysiology and behavior in populations who experience difficulty understanding speech in noise such as those with hearing impairment or age-related deficits.

Keywords

cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) event-related potentials (ERPs) signals in noise signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) background noise N1 

Abbreviations

SPL

Sound pressure level

HL

Hearing level

dB

Decibel

SNR

Signal-to-noise ratio

CAEPs

Cortical auditory evoked potentials

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

LOOCV

Leave-one-out cross-validation

PLS

Partial least squares

RMSPE

Root-mean-square prediction error

References

  1. Adler G, Adler J (1989) Influence of stimulus intensity on AEP components in the 80- to 200-ms latency range. Audiology 28:316–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akeroyd MA, Patterson RD (1995) Discrimination of wideband noises modulated by a temporally asymmetric function. J Acoust Soc Am 98:2466–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N (2010) Neural timing is linking to speech perception in noise. J Neurosci 30:4922–4926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltzell LS, Billings CJ (2013) Sensitivity of offset and onset cortical auditory evoked potentials to signals in noise. Clin Neurophys. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2013.08.003
  5. Bennett K, Billings CJ, Molis MR, Leek MR (2012) Neural encoding and perception of speech signals in informational masking. Ear Hear 32:1–8Google Scholar
  6. Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Souza PE, Binns MA (2007) Effects of hearing aid amplification and stimulus intensity on cortical auditory evoked potentials. Audiol Neuro-Otol 12:234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billings CJ, Tremblay KL, Stecker C, Tolin WM (2009) Human evoked cortical activity to signal-to-noise ratio and absolute signal level. Hear Res 254:15–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billings CJ, Papesh MA, Penman TM, Baltzell LS, Gallun FJ (2012) Clinical use of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials as a measure of physiological detection or physiological discrimination. Int J Otolaryngol 2012:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costalupes JA, Young ED, Gibson DJ (1984) Effects of continuous noise backgrounds on rate response of auditory nerve fibers in cat. J Neurophysiol 51:1326–1344PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubno JR, Schaefer AB (1992) Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 91:2110–2121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibson DJ, Young ED, Costalupes JA (1985) Similarity of dynamic range adjustment in auditory nerve and cochlear nuclei. J Neurophysiol 53:940–958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldstein MH, Hall JL II, Butterfield BO (1968) Single-unit activity in the primary auditory cortex of unanesthetized cats. J Acoust Soc Am 43:444–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning, 2nd edn. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins JE, Stevens SS (1950) The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. J Acoust Soc Am 22:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hillyard SA, Hink RF, Schwent VL, Picton TW (1973) Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science 182:177–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillyard SA, Vogel EK, Luck SJ (1998) Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 353:1257–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hornsby BWY, Trine TD, Ohde RN (2005) The effects of high presentation levels on consonant feature transmission. J Acoust Soc Am 118:1719–1729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyde M (1997) The N1 response and its applications. Audiol Neuro-otol 2:281–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (1969) IEEE Recommended Practice for Speech Quality Measures. New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Kaplan-Neeman R, Kishon-Rabin L, Henkin Y, Muchnik C (2006) Identification of syllable in noise: electrophysiological and behavioral correlates. J Acoust Soc Am 120:926–933PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molis MR, Summers V (2003) Effects of high presentation levels on recognition of low- and high-frequency speech. Acoust Res Lett Onl 4:124–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Naatanen R, Picton T (1987) The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 24:375–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neuroscan, Inc. (2007) SCAN 4.4—Vol II, Edit 4.4: offline analysis of acquired data (Document number 2203, Revision E, pp. 141–148). Compumedics Neuroscan, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
  24. Parbery-Clark A, Marmel P, Bair J, Kraus N (2011) What subcortical–cortical relationships tell us about processing speech in noise. Eur J Neurosci 33:549–557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patterson RD (1994) The sound of a sinusoid: time-interval models. J Acoust Soc Am 96:1419–1428Google Scholar
  26. Phillips DP (1990) Neural representation of sound amplitude in the auditory cortex: effects of noise masking. Behav Brain Res 37:197–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phillips DP, Hall SE (1986) Spike-rate intensity functions of cat cortical neurons studied with combined tone–noise stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am 80:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rees A, Palmer AR (1988) Rate-intensity functions and their modification by broadband noise for neurons in the guinea pig inferior colliculus. J Acoust Soc Am 83:1488–1498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwartz O, Simoncelli EP (2001) Natural signal statistics and sensory gain control. Nat Neurosci 4:819–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skrandies W (1989) Data reduction of multichannel fields: global field power and principal component analysis. Brain Topogr 2:73–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevens SS, Guirao M (1967) Loudness functions under inhibition. Percept Psychophys 2:459–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL, McDaniel DM, Gwaltney CA (1999) Monosyllabic word recognition at higher-than-normal speech and noise levels. J Acoust Soc Am 105:2431–2444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Summers V, Molis MR (2004) Speech recognition in fluctuating and continuous maskers: effects of hearing loss and presentation level. J Speech Lang Hear R 47:245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang X, Thomas L, Snider RK, Liang L (2005) Sustained firing in auditory cortex evoked by preferred stimuli. Nature 435:341–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Whiting KA, Martin BA, Stapells DR (1998) The effects of broad-band noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds /ba/ and /da/. Ear Hear 19:218–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Research in Otolaryngology (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Curtis J. Billings
    • 1
    • 2
  • Garnett P. McMillan
    • 1
  • Tina M. Penman
    • 1
  • Sun Mi Gille
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Rehabilitative Auditory Research, Portland VA Medical CenterPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Department of OtolaryngologyOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations