CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020334en
CoDAS
Artigo Original

Masking release in cortical auditory evoked potentials with speech stimulus

O benefício do mascaramento modulado nos potenciais evocados auditivos corticais com estímulo de fala

Mônyka Ferreira Borges Rocha; Denise Costa Menezes; Danielle Samara Bandeira Duarte; Silvana Maria Sobral Griz; Ana Claudia Figueiredo Frizzo; Pedro de Lemos Menezes; Cleide Fernandes Teixeira; Karina Paes Advíncula

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212020334en CoDAS, vol.35, n1, e20200334, 2022
PDF English
PDF Português
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 1
Views: 553

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the effect of masking on the Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential with speech stimulus in young adults.

Methods

Fourteen individuals aged between 19 and 28 years of both sexes with no hearing loss participated in the study. The Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential examination was performed with synthetic speech stimulus /ba/ simultaneous to Speech Shaped Noise presented under three conditions: steady noise with a 30 dB SPLep intensity (weak steady noise), steady noise with a 65 dB SPLep intensity o (strong steady noise) and modulated noise with 30 dB SPLep and 65 dB SPLep intensities at 25Hz and modulation period of 40 ms.

Results

Higher latencies were observed in the cortical components, except P2, in the condition of strong steady noise and more meaningful measures of amplitude of the cortical components P1, N1 and P2 in the condition of modulated noise with statistically significant difference in comparison to the strong steady noise condition. There was worse wave morphology in the condition of strong steady noise, when compared to the other records. The average electrophysiological thresholds for the conditions of strong steady noise and modulated noise were 60 dB SPLep and 49 dB SPLep, respectively, showing a 11.7 dB mean difference.

Conclusion

We could infer that there was a lower masking effect of modulated noise when compared to the strong steady noise condition, in the amplitude measurements of the cortical components and an average difference of 11.7 dB between the electrophysiological thresholds (interpreted as the measure of the Masking Release).

Keywords

Electrophysiology; Evoked Potentials Auditory; Speech Perception; Perceptual Masking; Hearing

Resumo

Objetivo

analisar o efeito do mascaramento estável e modulado no Potencial Evocado Auditivo Cortical com estímulo de fala em adultos-jovens.

Método

participaram 14 indivíduos com idades entre 19 e 28 anos de ambos os sexos e sem perda auditiva. O exame de Potencial Evocado Auditivo Cortical foi realizado com estímulo de fala sintética /ba/ simultâneo ao ruído Speech Shaped Noise apresentado em três condições: ruído estável com intensidade de 30 dB NPSpe (ruído estável fraco), ruído estável com intensidade de 65 dB NPSpe (ruído estável forte) e ruído modulado em intensidade de 30 dB NPSpe e 65 dB NPSpe em 25Hz e com período de modulação de 40 ms.

Resultados

foram observadas maiores latências nos componentes corticais, exceto P2, na condição de ruído estável forte e medidas mais robustas de amplitude dos componentes corticais P1, N1 e P2 na condição de ruído modulado com diferença estatística significativa na comparação com a condição de ruído estável forte. Houve pior morfologia na condição de ruído estável forte, quando comparado aos demais registros. Os limiares eletrofisiológicos médios para as condições de ruído estável forte e ruído modulado foram 60 dB NPSpe e 49 dB NPSpe, respectivamente, mostrando 11,7 dB de diferença média.

Conclusão

podemos inferir que houve um menor efeito mascarante do ruído modulado, comparado à condição de ruído estável forte, nas medidas de amplitude dos componentes corticais e uma diferença média de 11,7 dB entre os limiares eletrofisiológicos (interpretado como a medida do Benefício do Mascaramento Modulado).

Palavras-chave

Eletrofisiologia; Potenciais Evocados Auditivos; Percepção da Fala; Mascaramento Perceptivo; Audição

Referencias

  1. Patro C, Kreft HA, Wojtczak M. Effects of age and hearing loss on perceptual and physiological measures of temporal envelope processing and spatial release from speech-on-speech masking. bioRxiv. 2020:1-61. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.03.281717
  2. Desloge JG, Reed CM, Braida LD, Perez ZD, D’aquila LA. Masking release for hearing-impaired listeners: the effect of increased audibility through reduction of amplitude variability. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;141(6):4452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4985186 PMid:28679277.
  3. Middlebrooks JC. Masking release by combined spatial and masker-fluctuation effects in the open sound field. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(6):3362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.5014053 PMid:29289075.
  4. Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, Costa MLG, Griz SMS. Efeito da idade no processamento auditivo temporal: benefício da modulação do mascaramento e efeito do pós‑mascaramento. Audiol Commun Res. 2018;23(0):e1861. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2017-1861
  5. Grose JH, Griz S, Pacífico FA, Advíncula KP, Menezes DC. Modulation masking release using the Brazilian-Portuguese HINT: psychometric functions and the effect of speech time compression. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(4):274-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.986692 PMid:25630394.
  6. Advíncula KP, Menezes DC, Pacífico FA, Griz SMS. Percepção da fala em presença de ruído competitivo: o efeito da taxa de modulação do ruído mascarante. Audiol Commun Res. 2013;18(4):238-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-64312013000400003
  7. George ELJ, Festen JM, Houtgast T. Factors affecting masking release for speech in modulated noise for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006;120(4):2295-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2266530 PMid:17069325.
  8. Tanner AM, Spitzer ER, Hyzy JP, Grose JH. Masking release for speech in modulated maskers: electrophysiological and behavioral measures. Ear Hear. 2019;40(4):1009-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000683 PMid:30557224.
  9. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x PMid:15817019.
  10. Jerger J, Jerger S, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry. Normal and sensorineural ears. Arch Otolaryngol. 1972;96(6):513-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1972.00770090791004 PMid:4621039.
  11. Jerger S, Jerger J. Alterações auditivas: um manual para avaliação clínica. São Paulo: Atheneu; 1989.
  12. WHO: World Health Organization. Basic ear and hearing care resource [citado em 2020 Out 23]. Disponível em: http://www.who.int/publications-detail/basic-ear-and-hearing-care-resource
  13. Stephens JDW, Holt LL. A standard set of American-English voiced stop-consonant stimuli from morphed natural speech. Speech Commun. 2011;53(6):877-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2011.02.007 PMid:21666844.
  14. Shafer VL, Yu YH, Wagner M. Maturation of cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) to speech recorded from frontocentral and temporal sites: three months to eight years of age. Int J Psychophysiol. 2015;95(2):77-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2014.08.1390 PMid:25219893.
  15. Almeqbel A. Speech evoked cortical auditory responses in children with normal hearing. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2013;60(1):38-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v60i1.9 PMid:25158372.
  16. Faucette SP, Stuart A. Evidence of a speech evoked electrophysiological release from masking in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017;142(2):EL218-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4998151 PMid:28863590.
  17. Drennan DP, Lalor EC. Cortical tracking of complex sound envelopes: modeling the changes in response with intensity. eNeuro. 2019;6(3):ENEURO.0082-19.2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0082-19.2019 PMid:31171606.
  18. Maamor N, Billings CJ. Cortical signal-in-noise coding varies by noise type, signal-to-noise ratio, age, and hearing status. Neurosci Lett. 2017;636:258-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2016.11.020 PMid:27838448.
  19. Androulidakis AG, Jones SJ. Detection of signals in modulated and unmodulated noise observed using auditory evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006;117(8):1783-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.04.011 PMid:16793334.
  20. Bernstein JG, Summers V, Iyer N, Brungart DS. Set-size procedures for controlling variations in speech-reception performance with a fluctuating masker. J Acoust Soc Am. 2012;132(4):2676-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4746019 PMid:23039460.
     
640759dca953954e6a661c89 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Electrónico)
CoDAS ©2024 Todos los derechos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections