» Articles » PMID: 36313043

The Influence of Male- and Female-Spoken Vowel Acoustics on Envelope-Following Responses

Overview
Journal Semin Hear
Date 2022 Oct 31
PMID 36313043
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The influence of male and female vowel characteristics on the envelope-following responses (EFRs) is not well understood. This study explored the role of vowel characteristics on the EFR at the fundamental frequency (f0) in response to the vowel /ε/ (as in "head"). Vowel tokens were spoken by five males and five females and EFRs were measured in 25 young adults (21 females). An auditory model was used to estimate changes in auditory processing that might account for talker effects on EFR amplitude. There were several differences between male and female vowels in relation to the EFR. For male talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the bandwidth and harmonic count of the first formant, and the amplitude of the trough below the second formant. For female talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the range of f0 frequencies and the amplitude of the trough above the second formant. The model suggested that the f0 EFR reflects a wide distribution of energy in speech, with primary contributions from high-frequency harmonics mediated from cochlear regions basal to the peaks of the first and second formants, not from low-frequency harmonics with energy near f0. Vowels produced by female talkers tend to produce lower-amplitude EFR, likely because they depend on higher-frequency harmonics where speech sound levels tend to be lower. This work advances auditory electrophysiology by showing how the EFR evoked by speech relates to the acoustics of speech, for both male and female voices.

Citing Articles

Fundamental frequency predominantly drives talker differences in auditory brainstem responses to continuous speech.

Polonenko M, Maddox R JASA Express Lett. 2024; 4(11).

PMID: 39504231 PMC: 11558516. DOI: 10.1121/10.0034329.


Fundamental frequency predominantly drives talker differences in auditory brainstem responses to continuous speech.

Polonenko M, Maddox R bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39026858 PMC: 11257598. DOI: 10.1101/2024.07.12.603125.

References
1.
Klatt D, Klatt L . Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 1990; 87(2):820-57. DOI: 10.1121/1.398894. View

2.
Guerit F, Marozeau J, Epp B . Linear combination of auditory steady-state responses evoked by co-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am. 2017; 142(4):EL395. DOI: 10.1121/1.5007757. View

3.
Huber J, Stathopoulos E, Curione G, Ash T, Johnson K . Formants of children, women, and men: the effects of vocal intensity variation. J Acoust Soc Am. 1999; 106(3 Pt 1):1532-42. DOI: 10.1121/1.427150. View

4.
Easwar V, Aiken S, Beh K, McGrath E, Galloy M, Scollie S . Variability in the Estimated Amplitude of Vowel-Evoked Envelope Following Responses Caused by Assumed Neurophysiologic Processing Delays. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2022; 23(6):759-769. PMC: 9789223. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1. View

5.
Cohen L, Rickards F, Clark G . A comparison of steady-state evoked potentials to modulated tones in awake and sleeping humans. J Acoust Soc Am. 1991; 90(5):2467-79. DOI: 10.1121/1.402050. View