Effect of Consonant Duration on Formation of Consonant-Vowel Syllable Evoked Auditory Cortical Potentials

Overview

Journal J Int Adv Otol

Publisher Aves

Specialty Otorhinolaryngology

Date 2017 Nov 3

PMID 29092801

Citations 1

Authors

Mehmet Yarali

Suha Yagcioglu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare P1-N1-P2-N2 response latencies and amplitudes evoked by voiced and unvoiced consonant-vowel syllables (CVS) /bi/-/pi/ and /di/-/ti/ by analyzing how the cortical responses to consonants and vowels interact during the formation of a syllable-evoked response.

Materials And Methods: Auditory late latency responses were recorded from 12 healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 40 years with normal hearing while presenting /bi/-/pi/ and /di/-/ti/ tokens and individual consonant-vowel parts of syllables. Amplitude/latency values of P1-N1-P2-N2 responses were compared between /bi/-/pi/ and /di/-/ti/ pairs. Formation of CVS-evoked responses by consonant and vowel responses was also investigated.

Results: N1-P2-N2 latencies evoked by /bi/ were significantly shorter than /pi/. P2-N2 amplitudes evoked by /di/ were significantly higher and N2 latencies were shorter than /ti/. N1-P2-N2 peaks of /bi/, /pi/, and /di/ seemed to be combinations of respective peaks of consonant and vowel-evoked responses. For /ti/, P1 and N1 seem to be stemming only from the consonant part, P2 from consonant P2 and vowel N1, and N2 from consonant N2 and vowel P2-N2.

Conclusion: For both CVS pairs, longer consonant durations resulted in lower amplitudes and/or longer latencies, and this sheds light on why voiced-unvoiced CVSs evoke cortical responses with different features. Obtaining evoked responses to each consonant-vowel part of the syllables among listeners with perceptual difficulties and hearing devices might help to reveal which acoustic cues are not well represented in the auditory brain.

Citing Articles

Discriminatory Brain Processes of Native and Foreign Language in Children with and without Reading Difficulties.

Azaiez N, Loberg O, Lohvansuu K, Ylinen S, Hamalainen J, Leppanen P Brain Sci. 2023; 13(1).

PMID: 36672057 PMC: 9856413. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13010076.

References

Martin B, BOOTHROYD A . Cortical, auditory, event-related potentials in response to periodic and aperiodic stimuli with the same spectral envelope. Ear Hear. 1999; 20(1):33-44. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199902000-00004. View

Sharma A, Dorman M . Cortical auditory evoked potential correlates of categorical perception of voice-onset time. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(2):1078-83. DOI: 10.1121/1.428048. View

Steinschneider M, Volkov I, Noh M, Garell P, Howard 3rd M . Temporal encoding of the voice onset time phonetic parameter by field potentials recorded directly from human auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol. 1999; 82(5):2346-57. DOI: 10.1152/jn.1999.82.5.2346. View

Martin B, BOOTHROYD A . Cortical, auditory, evoked potentials in response to changes of spectrum and amplitude. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 107(4):2155-61. DOI: 10.1121/1.428556. View

Sharma A, Marsh C, Dorman M . Relationship between N1 evoked potential morphology and the perception of voicing. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 108(6):3030-5. DOI: 10.1121/1.1320474. View

Tremblay K, Piskosz M, Souza P . Aging alters the neural representation of speech cues. Neuroreport. 2002; 13(15):1865-70. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200210280-00007. View

Tremblay K, Friesen L, Martin B, Wright R . Test-retest reliability of cortical evoked potentials using naturally produced speech sounds. Ear Hear. 2003; 24(3):225-32. DOI: 10.1097/01.AUD.0000069229.84883.03. View

Delorme A, Makeig S . EEGLAB: an open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. J Neurosci Methods. 2004; 134(1):9-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2003.10.009. View

Lister J, Maxfield N, Pitt G . Cortical evoked response to gaps in noise: within-channel and across-channel conditions. Ear Hear. 2007; 28(6):862-78. PMC: 4792277. DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181576cba. View

10.

Dimitrijevic A, Michalewski H, Zeng F, Pratt H, Starr A . Frequency changes in a continuous tone: auditory cortical potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008; 119(9):2111-24. PMC: 2741402. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.06.002. View

11.

King K, Campbell J, Sharma A, Martin K, Dorman M, Langran J . The representation of voice onset time in the cortical auditory evoked potentials of young children. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008; 119(12):2855-61. PMC: 3726214. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2008.09.015. View

12.

Palmer S, Musiek F . N1-p2 recordings to gaps in broadband noise. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012; 24(1):37-45. DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.24.1.5. View

13.

Lopez-Calderon J, Luck S . ERPLAB: an open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014; 8:213. PMC: 3995046. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00213. View

14.

Han J, Zhang F, Kadis D, Houston L, Samy R, Smith M . Auditory cortical activity to different voice onset times in cochlear implant users. Clin Neurophysiol. 2015; 127(2):1603-1617. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.10.049. View

15.

Steinschneider M, Schroeder C, Arezzo J, Vaughan Jr H . Speech-evoked activity in primary auditory cortex: effects of voice onset time. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994; 92(1):30-43. DOI: 10.1016/0168-5597(94)90005-1. View

16.

Steinschneider M, Schroeder C, Arezzo J, Vaughan Jr H . Physiologic correlates of the voice onset time boundary in primary auditory cortex (A1) of the awake monkey: temporal response patterns. Brain Lang. 1995; 48(3):326-40. DOI: 10.1006/brln.1995.1015. View

17.

Ostroff J, Martin B, BOOTHROYD A . Cortical evoked response to acoustic change within a syllable. Ear Hear. 1998; 19(4):290-7. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199808000-00004. View

18.

Arlinger S, Jerlvall L, Ahren T, Holmgren E . Slow evoked cortical responses to linear frequency ramps of a continuous pure tone. Acta Physiol Scand. 1976; 98(4):412-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1976.tb10330.x. View