» Articles » PMID: 21241645

Sensory-cognitive Interaction in the Neural Encoding of Speech in Noise: a Review

Overview
Publisher Thieme
Date 2011 Jan 19
PMID 21241645
Citations 35
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Speech-in-noise (SIN) perception is one of the most complex tasks faced by listeners on a daily basis. Although listening in noise presents challenges for all listeners, background noise inordinately affects speech perception in older adults and in children with learning disabilities. Hearing thresholds are an important factor in SIN perception, but they are not the only factor. For successful comprehension, the listener must perceive and attend to relevant speech features, such as the pitch, timing, and timbre of the target speaker's voice. Here, we review recent studies linking SIN and brainstem processing of speech sounds.

Purpose: To review recent work that has examined the ability of the auditory brainstem response to complex sounds (cABR), which reflects the nervous system's transcription of pitch, timing, and timbre, to be used as an objective neural index for hearing-in-noise abilities.

Study Sample: We examined speech-evoked brainstem responses in a variety of populations, including children who are typically developing, children with language-based learning impairment, young adults, older adults, and auditory experts (i.e., musicians).

Data Collection And Analysis: In a number of studies, we recorded brainstem responses in quiet and babble noise conditions to the speech syllable /da/ in all age groups, as well as in a variable condition in children in which /da/ was presented in the context of seven other speech sounds. We also measured speech-in-noise perception using the Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT) and the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN).

Results: Children and adults with poor SIN perception have deficits in the subcortical spectrotemporal representation of speech, including low-frequency spectral magnitudes and the timing of transient response peaks. Furthermore, auditory expertise, as engendered by musical training, provides both behavioral and neural advantages for processing speech in noise.

Conclusions: These results have implications for future assessment and management strategies for young and old populations whose primary complaint is difficulty hearing in background noise. The cABR provides a clinically applicable metric for objective assessment of individuals with SIN deficits, for determination of the biologic nature of disorders affecting SIN perception, for evaluation of appropriate hearing aid algorithms, and for monitoring the efficacy of auditory remediation and training.

Citing Articles

Effects of stimuli and contralateral noise levels on auditory cortical potentials recorded in school-age children.

Ubiali T, Madruga-Rimoli C, Diniz-Hein T, Sanfins M, Masiero B, Colella-Santos M PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0317661.

PMID: 39841711 PMC: 11753713. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317661.


How does the human brain process noisy speech in real life? Insights from the second-person neuroscience perspective.

Li Z, Zhang D Cogn Neurodyn. 2024; 18(2):371-382.

PMID: 38699619 PMC: 11061069. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-022-09924-w.


Noise-Induced Hearing Loss.

Natarajan N, Batts S, Stankovic K J Clin Med. 2023; 12(6).

PMID: 36983347 PMC: 10059082. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062347.


Noise Disturbance and Well-Being in the North of Spain.

Santurtun M, Garcia Tarrago M, Fdez-Arroyabe P, Zarrabeitia M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(24).

PMID: 36554336 PMC: 9778707. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416457.


Comparing Clinically Applicable Behavioral and Electrophysiological Measures of Speech Detection, Discrimination, and Comprehension.

Deshpande P, Brandt C, Debener S, Neher T Trends Hear. 2022; 26:23312165221139733.

PMID: 36423251 PMC: 9703531. DOI: 10.1177/23312165221139733.


References
1.
Musacchia G, Sams M, Skoe E, Kraus N . Musicians have enhanced subcortical auditory and audiovisual processing of speech and music. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(40):15894-8. PMC: 2000431. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0701498104. View

2.
Shahin A, Bosnyak D, Trainor L, Roberts L . Enhancement of neuroplastic P2 and N1c auditory evoked potentials in musicians. J Neurosci. 2003; 23(13):5545-52. PMC: 6741225. View

3.
Aiken S, Picton T . Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res. 2008; 245(1-2):35-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2008.08.004. View

4.
Frisina D, Frisina R . Speech recognition in noise and presbycusis: relations to possible neural mechanisms. Hear Res. 1997; 106(1-2):95-104. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5955(97)00006-3. View

5.
Lukas J . The role of efferent inhibition in human auditory attention: an examination of the auditory brainstem potentials. Int J Neurosci. 1981; 12(2):137-45. DOI: 10.3109/00207458108985796. View