The Effect of Different Noise Maskers and Speech Understanding in Noise on Auditory Cortical N1 Response

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of different noise types at different signal to noise ratios(SNR) on sound onset and sound change evoked N1 responses among normal hearing individuals with different speech in noise abilities.
Materials and Methods: 30 participants aged between 18-30 are included in the study. Participants were divided into two groups based on median value of the scores obtained in speech in noise test. In electrophysiological measurements the stimulus /ui/ was presented in quiet, and in white noise and ICRA noise under two SNRs. Sound onset and sound change evoked N1 latencies and N1-P2 amplitudes were compared between conditions and groups.
Results: White sound onset N1 latencies were prolonged in both noise types under both SNRs, N1-P2 amplitudes were lower in ICRA noise under both SNR conditions compared to quiet. Latencies and amplitudes at the same SNR under ICRA noise were higher and lower respectively compared to white noise. Sound change N1 latencies were higher at +10dB SNR ICRA noise and +5dB SNR white noise compared to quiet, N1-P2 amplitudes were lower at ICRA +5dB, +10dB SNR and at white noise +5dB SNR compared to quiet. In between group comparisons sound onset N1-P2 amplitudes of group-2 were higher than group-1 at white noise +5dB SNR, no relationship between speech in noise scores and cortical responses was found.
Conclusion: The presence of noise change the sound onset and sound change N1 responses, the effect of noise types changes based on the evoked response.

Keywords

• speech in noise
• cortical N1 response
• steady noise
• variable noise

References

1. Akşit , A. M. (1994). Konuşmayı ayırtetme testi için izofonik tek heceli kelime listeleri nin oluşturulması (dissertation). In (pp. 13). İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sağlık bilimleri Enstitüsü.
2. Anderson, S., Chandrasekaran, B., Yi, H.-G., & Kraus, N. (2010). Cortical‐evoked potentials reflect speech‐in‐noise perception in children. Eur J neurosci., 32(38):1407-1413.
3. Bennett, K. O. C., Billings, C. J., Molis, M. R., & Leek, M. R. (2012). Neural encoding and perception of speech signals in informational masking. Ear and hearing, 32(32):231.
4. Billings, C. J., Bennett, K. O., Molis, M. R., & Leek, M. R. (2011). Cortical encoding of signals in noise: effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear, 32(31):53.
5. Billings, C. J., Bennett, K. O., Molis, M. R., & Leek, M. R. (2017). Acoustic change complex in background noise: phoneme level and timing effects. Physiological reports, 5(20):e13464.
6. Boersma, P. (2001). Praat, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot international, 5(9), 341-345.
7. Boothroyd, A., Leach-Berth, T., Ali, D., & Martin, B. A. (2010). Stimulus presentation strategies for eliciting the acoustic change complex: increasing efficiency. Ear and hearing, 31(33), 356.
8. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of neuroscience methods, 134(131):139-121.

9. Dreschler, W. A., Verschuure, H., Ludvigsen, C., & Westermann, S. (2001). ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. Audiology, 40:43, 148-157.
10. Ganapathy , M. K., & Manjula , P. (2016). Effect of noise on acoustic change complex. Int J health sci res., 6:356-370.
11. Hall III, J. W. (2015). Handbook of Auditory Evoked Responses (2015) (1).pdf.
12. Hawkins Jr, J., & Stevens, S. (1950). The masking of pure tones and of speech by white noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22(21):26-13.
13. Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8:213.
14. Maamor, N., & Billings, C. J. N. l. (2017). Cortical signal-in-noise coding varies by noise type, signal-to-noise ratio, age, and hearing status. 636, 258-264.
15. Martin, B. A., & Boothroyd, A. (1999). Cortical, auditory, event-related potentials in response to periodic and aperiodic stimuli with the same spectral envelope. Ear and hearing, 20(21):33-44.
16. Martin, B. A., Tremblay, K., & Stapells, D. (2007). Principles and applications of cortical auditory evoked potentials. In (pp. 482-507).
17. Martin, B. A., Tremblay, K. L., & Korczak, P. (2008). Speech Evoked Potentials: From the Laboratory to the Clinic. Ear and hearing, 29(23):285-313.
18. Martin, B. A., Tremblay, K. L., & Stapells, D. R. (2007). Principles and applications of cortical auditory evoked potentials. In Auditory evoked potentials. (pp. 482-507).
19. McCullagh, J., Musiek, F. E., & Shinn, J. B. (2012). Auditory cortical processing in noise in normal-hearing young adults. Audiological Medicine, 10(3), 114-121.
20. Niemczak, C. E., & Vander Werff, K. R. (2019). Informational masking effects on neural encoding of stimulus onset and acoustic change. Ear and hearing, 40(41):156-167.
21. Picton, T. W. (2010). Human auditory evoked potentials. Plural Publishing.
22. Small, S. A., Sharma, M., Bradford, M., Vasuki, P. R. M. E., & hearing. (2018). The effect of signal to noise ratio on cortical auditory–evoked potentials elicited to speech stimuli in infants and adults with normal hearing. 39(2), 305-317.
23. Whiting, K. A., Martin, B. A., & Stapells, D. R. (1998). The effects of broadband noise masking on cortical event-related potentials to speech sounds/ba/and/da. Ear and hearing, 19(13):218-231.
24. Yaralı, M. (2020). Varying effect of noise on sound onset and acoustic change evoked auditory cortical N1 responses evoked by a vowel-vowel stimulus. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 152 136-143.