Neural Correlation of Speech Envelope Tracking for Background Noise in Normal Hearing

Overview

Journal Front Neurosci

Date 2023 Nov 2

PMID 37916182

Authors

HyunJung An

Jeewon Lee

Myung-Whan Suh

Yoonseob Lim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Everyday speech communication often occurs in environments with background noise, and the impact of noise on speech recognition can vary depending on factors such as noise type, noise intensity, and the listener's hearing ability. However, the extent to which neural mechanisms in speech understanding are influenced by different types and levels of noise remains unknown. This study aims to investigate whether individuals exhibit distinct neural responses and attention strategies depending on noise conditions. We recorded electroencephalography (EEG) data from 20 participants with normal hearing (13 males) and evaluated both neural tracking of speech envelopes and behavioral performance in speech understanding in the presence of varying types of background noise. Participants engaged in an EEG experiment consisting of two separate sessions. The first session involved listening to a 12-min story presented binaurally without any background noise. In the second session, speech understanding scores were measured using matrix sentences presented under speech-shaped noise (SSN) and Story noise background noise conditions at noise levels corresponding to sentence recognitions score (SRS). We observed differences in neural envelope correlation depending on noise type but not on its level. Interestingly, the impact of noise type on the variation in envelope tracking was more significant among participants with higher speech perception scores, while those with lower scores exhibited similarities in envelope correlation regardless of the noise condition. The findings suggest that even individuals with normal hearing could adopt different strategies to understand speech in challenging listening environments, depending on the type of noise.

References

Hickok G, Poeppel D . Neural basis of speech perception. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015; 129:149-60. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62630-1.00008-1. View

Das N, Bertrand A, Francart T . EEG-based auditory attention detection: boundary conditions for background noise and speaker positions. J Neural Eng. 2018; 15(6):066017. DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/aae0a6. View

Dimitrijevic A, Smith M, Kadis D, Moore D . Neural indices of listening effort in noisy environments. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):11278. PMC: 6677804. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-47643-1. View

Raghavan V, OSullivan J, Bickel S, Mehta A, Mesgarani N . Distinct neural encoding of glimpsed and masked speech in multitalker situations. PLoS Biol. 2023; 21(6):e3002128. PMC: 10243639. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002128. View

Kidd Jr G, Mason C, Rohtla T, Deliwala P . Release from masking due to spatial separation of sources in the identification of nonspeech auditory patterns. J Acoust Soc Am. 1998; 104(1):422-31. DOI: 10.1121/1.423246. View

Nilsson M, Soli S, Sullivan J . Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994; 95(2):1085-99. DOI: 10.1121/1.408469. View

Hutcherson R, DIRKS D, Morgan D . Evaluation of the speech perception in noise (SPIN) test. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg (1979). 1979; 87(2):239-45. DOI: 10.1177/019459987908700215. View

Shannon R, Zeng F, Kamath V, Wygonski J, Ekelid M . Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science. 1995; 270(5234):303-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.270.5234.303. View

Etard O, Reichenbach T . Neural Speech Tracking in the Theta and in the Delta Frequency Band Differentially Encode Clarity and Comprehension of Speech in Noise. J Neurosci. 2019; 39(29):5750-5759. PMC: 6636082. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1828-18.2019. View

10.

Zion Golumbic E, Ding N, Bickel S, Lakatos P, Schevon C, McKhann G . Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a "cocktail party". Neuron. 2013; 77(5):980-91. PMC: 3891478. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.037. View

11.

OSullivan J, Power A, Mesgarani N, Rajaram S, Foxe J, Shinn-Cunningham B . Attentional Selection in a Cocktail Party Environment Can Be Decoded from Single-Trial EEG. Cereb Cortex. 2014; 25(7):1697-706. PMC: 4481604. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht355. View

12.

Vanthornhout J, Decruy L, Wouters J, Simon J, Francart T . Speech Intelligibility Predicted from Neural Entrainment of the Speech Envelope. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2018; 19(2):181-191. PMC: 5878153. DOI: 10.1007/s10162-018-0654-z. View

13.

Park J, Baek S, Suh M, Choi J, Kim S, Lim Y . The effect of topic familiarity and volatility of auditory scene on selective auditory attention. Hear Res. 2023; 433:108770. DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2023.108770. View

14.

Crosse M, Di Liberto G, Bednar A, Lalor E . The Multivariate Temporal Response Function (mTRF) Toolbox: A MATLAB Toolbox for Relating Neural Signals to Continuous Stimuli. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016; 10:604. PMC: 5127806. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00604. View

15.

Brungart D . Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. J Acoust Soc Am. 2001; 109(3):1101-9. DOI: 10.1121/1.1345696. View

16.

Vanthornhout J, Decruy L, Francart T . Effect of Task and Attention on Neural Tracking of Speech. Front Neurosci. 2019; 13:977. PMC: 6756133. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00977. View

17.

Cooke M . A glimpsing model of speech perception in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2006; 119(3):1562-73. DOI: 10.1121/1.2166600. View

18.

Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C . Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST). Ear Hear. 1987; 8(5 Suppl):119S-126S. DOI: 10.1097/00003446-198710001-00010. View

19.

Gustafson S, Grose J, Buss E . Perceptual organization and stability of auditory streaming for pure tones and /ba/ stimuli. J Acoust Soc Am. 2020; 148(2):EL159. PMC: 7438158. DOI: 10.1121/10.0001744. View

20.

Kurthen I, Galbier J, Jagoda L, Neuschwander P, Giroud N, Meyer M . Selective attention modulates neural envelope tracking of informationally masked speech in healthy older adults. Hum Brain Mapp. 2021; 42(10):3042-3057. PMC: 8193518. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.25415. View