Exponential Modeling of Frequency-Following Responses in American Neonates and Adults

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

The scalp-recorded frequency-following response (FFR) has been widely accepted in assessing the brain’s processing of speech stimuli for people who speak tonal and nontonal languages. Characteristics of scalp-recorded FFRs with increasing number of sweeps have been delineated through the use of an exponential curve-fitting model in Chinese adults; however, characteristics of speech processing for people who speak a nontonal language remain unclear.

Purpose:

This study had two specific aims. The first was to examine the characteristics of speech processing in neonates and adults who speak a nontonal language, to evaluate the goodness of fit of an exponential model on neonatal and adult FFRs, and to determine the differences, if any, between the two groups of participants. The second aim was to assess effective recording parameters for American neonates and adults.

Research Design:

This investigation employed a prospective between-subject study design.

Study Sample:

A total of 12 American neonates (1–3 days old) and 12 American adults (24.1 ± 2.5 yr old) were recruited. Each neonate passed an automated hearing screening at birth and all adult participants had normal hearing and were native English speakers.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The English vowel /i/ with a rising pitch contour (117–166 Hz) was used to elicit the FFR. A total of 8,000 accepted sweeps were recorded from each participant. Three objective indices (Frequency Error, Tracking Accuracy, and Pitch Strength) were computed to estimate the frequency-tracking acuity and neural phase-locking magnitude when progressively more sweeps were included in the averaged waveform. For each objective index, the FFR trends were fit to an exponential curve-fitting model that included estimates of asymptotic amplitude, noise amplitude, and a time constant.

Results:

Significant differences were observed between groups for Frequency Error, Tracking Accuracy, and Pitch Strength of the FFR trends. The adult participants had significantly smaller Frequency Error (p < 0.001), better Tracking Accuracy (p = 0.001), and larger Pitch Strength (p = 0.003) values than the neonate participants. The adult participants also demonstrated a faster rate of improvement (i.e., a smaller time constant) in all three objective indices compared to the neonate participants. The smaller time constants observed in adults indicate that a larger number of sweeps will be needed to adequately assess the FFR for neonates. Furthermore, the exponential curve-fitting model provided a good fit to the FFR trends with increasing number of sweeps for American neonates (mean r ² = 0.89) and adults (mean r ² = 0.96).

Conclusions:

Significant differences were noted between the neonatal and adult participants for Frequency Error, Tracking Accuracy, and Pitch Strength. These differences have important clinical implications in determining when to stop a recording and the number of sweeps needed to adequately assess the frequency-encoding acuity and neural phase-locking magnitude in neonates and adults. These findings lay an important foundation for establishing a normative database for American neonates and adults, and may prove to be useful in the development of diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms for neonates and adults who speak a nontonal language.

This study was supported by National Science Foundation, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (grant number BCS-1250700) and Ohio University – Baker Fund Award (grant number BA-15-07).

• REFERENCES

• Aiken SJ, Picton TW. 2006; Envelope following responses to natural vowels. Audiol Neurootol 11 (04) 213-232
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aiken SJ, Picton TW. 2008; Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res 245 1–2 35-47
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. 2015; Development of subcortical speech representation in human infants. J Acoust Soc Am 137 (06) 3346-3355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Behroozmand R, Oya H, Nourski KV, Kawasaki H, Larson CR, Brugge JF, Howard 3rd MA, Greenlee JD. 2016; Neural correlates of vocal production and motor control in human Heschl’s gyrus. J Neurosci 36 (07) 2302-2315
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Courant R, Robbins H. 1996. What Is Mathematics? An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;
  Google Scholar
• Dillon H. 2001. Hearing Aids. New York, NY: Thieme;
  Google Scholar
• Feigin JA, Kopun JG, Stelmachowicz PG, Gorga MP. 1989; Probe-tube microphone measures of ear-canal sound pressure levels in infants and children. Ear Hear 10: 254-258
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galbraith GC, Amaya EM, de Rivera JM, Donan NM, Duong MT, Hsu JN, Tran K, Tsang LP. 2004; Brain stem evoked response to forward and reversed speech in humans. Neuroreport 15 (13) 2057-2060
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Galbraith GC, Bagasan B, Sulahian J. 2001; Brainstem frequency-following response recorded from one vertical and three horizontal electrode derivations. Percept Mot Skills 92 (01) 99-106
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldstein LJ, Schneider DI, Lay DC, Asmar NH. 2009. Calculus and Its Applications. 12th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall;
  Google Scholar
• Hornickel J, Skoe E, Zecker S, Kraus N. 2009; Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 13022-13027
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeng F-C, Chung H-K, Lin C-D, Dickman B, Hu J. 2011; Exponential modeling of human frequency-following responses to voice pitch. Int J Audiol 50 (09) 582-593
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeng F-C, Hu J, Dickman B, Montgomery-Reagan K, Tong M, Wu G, Lin CD. 2011; Cross-linguistic comparison of frequency-following responses to voice pitch in American and Chinese neonates and adults. Ear Hear 32 (06) 699-707
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeng F-C, Peris KS, Hu J, Lin C-D. 2013; Evaluation of an automated procedure for detecting frequency-following responses in American and Chinese neonates. Percept Mot Skills 116 (02) 456-465
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jeng F-C, Schnabel EA, Dickman BM, Hu J, Li X, Lin CD, Chung HK. 2010; Early maturation of frequency-following responses to voice pitch in infants with normal hearing. Percept Mot Skills 111 (03) 765-784
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 1994; Joint committee on infant hearing 1994 position statement. ASHA 36 (12) 38-41
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keefe DH, Bulen JC, Hoberg Arehart K, Burns EM. 1993; Ear-canal impedance and reflection coefficient in human infants and adults. J Acoust Soc Am 94: 2617-2638
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour JT, Cariani PA. 2004; Human frequency-following response: representation of pitch contours in Chinese tones. Hear Res 189 1–2 1-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Krishnan A, Xu Y, Gandour J, Cariani P. 2005; Encoding of pitch in the human brainstem is sensitive to language experience. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 25 (01) 161-168
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller CA, Abbas PJ, Robinson BK, Nourski KV, Zhang F, Jeng F-C. 2006; Electrical excitation of the acoustically sensitive auditory nerve: single-fiber responses to electric pulse trains. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 7 (03) 195-210
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Musacchia G, Sams M, Skoe E, Kraus N. 2007; Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 15894-15898
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nourski KV, Abbas PJ, Miller CA, Robinson BK, Jeng F-C. 2005; Effects of acoustic noise on the auditory nerve compound action potentials evoked by electric pulse trains. Hear Res 202 1–2 141-153
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nourski KV, Brugge JF, Reale RA, Kovach CK, Oya H, Kawasaki H, Jenison RL, Howard MA. 2013; Coding of repetitive transients by auditory cortex on posterolateral superior temporal gyrus in humans: an intracranial electrophysiology study. J Neurophysiol 109 (05) 1283-1295
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rubel EW, Ryals BM. 1983; Development of the place principle: acoustic trauma. Science 219 4584 512-514
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. 2004; Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol 115 (09) 2021-2030
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russo NM, Nicol TG, Zecker SG, Hayes EA, Kraus N. 2005; Auditory training improves neural timing in the human brainstem. Behav Brain Res 156 (01) 95-103
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russo NM, Skoe E, Trommer B, Nicol T, Zecker S, Bradlow A, Kraus N. 2008; Deficient brainstem encoding of pitch in children with autism spectrum disorders. Clin Neurophysiol 119 (08) 1720-1731
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Scollie SD, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Jenstad LM. 1998; Validity and repeatability of level-independent HL to SPL transforms. Ear Hear 19 (05) 407-413
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skoe E, Kraus N. 2013; Musical training heightens auditory brainstem function during sensitive periods in development. Front Psychol 4: 1-15
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Skoe E, Krizman J, Anderson S, Kraus N. 2015; Stability and plasticity of auditory brainstem function across the lifespan. Cereb Cortex 25 (06) 1415-1426
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Song JH, Skoe E, Wong PCM, Kraus N. 2008; Plasticity in the adult human auditory brainstem following short-term linguistic training. J Cogn Neurosci 20 (10) 1892-1902
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swaminathan J, Krishnan A, Gandour JT. 2008; Pitch encoding in speech and nonspeech contexts in the human auditory brainstem. Neuroreport 19: 1163-1167
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong PCM, Skoe E, Russo NM, Dees T, Kraus N. 2007; Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nat Neurosci 10: 420-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar