Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Steven Aiken, Krystal Beh, Emma McGrath, Mary Galloy, Susan Scollie, David Purcell
{"title":"假设的神经生理加工延迟引起的反应后元音诱发包络估计振幅的变异性。","authors":"Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Steven Aiken, Krystal Beh, Emma McGrath, Mary Galloy, Susan Scollie, David Purcell","doi":"10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vowel-evoked envelope following responses (EFRs) reflect neural encoding of the fundamental frequency of voice (f<sub>0</sub>). Accurate analysis of EFRs elicited by natural vowels requires the use of methods like the Fourier analyzer (FA) to consider the production-related f<sub>0</sub> changes. The FA's accuracy in estimating EFRs is, however, dependent on the assumed neurophysiological processing delay needed to time-align the f<sub>0</sub> time course and the recorded electroencephalogram (EEG). For male-spoken vowels (f<sub>0</sub> ~ 100 Hz), a constant 10-ms delay correction is often assumed. Since processing delays vary with stimulus and physiological factors, we quantified (i) the delay-related variability that would occur in EFR estimation, and (ii) the influence of stimulus frequency, non-f<sub>0</sub> related neural activity, and the listener's age on such variability. EFRs were elicited by the low-frequency first formant, and mid-frequency second and higher formants of /u/, /a/, and /i/ in young adults and 6- to 17-year-old children. To time-align with the f<sub>0</sub> time course, EEG was shifted by delays between 5 and 25 ms to encompass plausible response latencies. The delay-dependent range in EFR amplitude did not vary by stimulus frequency or age and was significantly smaller when interference from low-frequency activity was reduced. On average, the delay-dependent range was < 22% of the maximum variability in EFR amplitude that could be expected by noise. Results suggest that using a constant EEG delay correction in FA analysis does not substantially alter EFR amplitude estimation. In the present study, the lack of substantial variability was likely facilitated by using vowels with small f<sub>0</sub> ranges.</p>","PeriodicalId":56283,"journal":{"name":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","volume":"23 6","pages":"759-769"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789223/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variability in the Estimated Amplitude of Vowel-Evoked Envelope Following Responses Caused by Assumed Neurophysiologic Processing Delays.\",\"authors\":\"Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Steven Aiken, Krystal Beh, Emma McGrath, Mary Galloy, Susan Scollie, David Purcell\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Vowel-evoked envelope following responses (EFRs) reflect neural encoding of the fundamental frequency of voice (f<sub>0</sub>). Accurate analysis of EFRs elicited by natural vowels requires the use of methods like the Fourier analyzer (FA) to consider the production-related f<sub>0</sub> changes. The FA's accuracy in estimating EFRs is, however, dependent on the assumed neurophysiological processing delay needed to time-align the f<sub>0</sub> time course and the recorded electroencephalogram (EEG). For male-spoken vowels (f<sub>0</sub> ~ 100 Hz), a constant 10-ms delay correction is often assumed. Since processing delays vary with stimulus and physiological factors, we quantified (i) the delay-related variability that would occur in EFR estimation, and (ii) the influence of stimulus frequency, non-f<sub>0</sub> related neural activity, and the listener's age on such variability. EFRs were elicited by the low-frequency first formant, and mid-frequency second and higher formants of /u/, /a/, and /i/ in young adults and 6- to 17-year-old children. To time-align with the f<sub>0</sub> time course, EEG was shifted by delays between 5 and 25 ms to encompass plausible response latencies. The delay-dependent range in EFR amplitude did not vary by stimulus frequency or age and was significantly smaller when interference from low-frequency activity was reduced. On average, the delay-dependent range was < 22% of the maximum variability in EFR amplitude that could be expected by noise. Results suggest that using a constant EEG delay correction in FA analysis does not substantially alter EFR amplitude estimation. In the present study, the lack of substantial variability was likely facilitated by using vowels with small f<sub>0</sub> ranges.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology\",\"volume\":\"23 6\",\"pages\":\"759-769\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9789223/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jaro-Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Variability in the Estimated Amplitude of Vowel-Evoked Envelope Following Responses Caused by Assumed Neurophysiologic Processing Delays.
Vowel-evoked envelope following responses (EFRs) reflect neural encoding of the fundamental frequency of voice (f0). Accurate analysis of EFRs elicited by natural vowels requires the use of methods like the Fourier analyzer (FA) to consider the production-related f0 changes. The FA's accuracy in estimating EFRs is, however, dependent on the assumed neurophysiological processing delay needed to time-align the f0 time course and the recorded electroencephalogram (EEG). For male-spoken vowels (f0 ~ 100 Hz), a constant 10-ms delay correction is often assumed. Since processing delays vary with stimulus and physiological factors, we quantified (i) the delay-related variability that would occur in EFR estimation, and (ii) the influence of stimulus frequency, non-f0 related neural activity, and the listener's age on such variability. EFRs were elicited by the low-frequency first formant, and mid-frequency second and higher formants of /u/, /a/, and /i/ in young adults and 6- to 17-year-old children. To time-align with the f0 time course, EEG was shifted by delays between 5 and 25 ms to encompass plausible response latencies. The delay-dependent range in EFR amplitude did not vary by stimulus frequency or age and was significantly smaller when interference from low-frequency activity was reduced. On average, the delay-dependent range was < 22% of the maximum variability in EFR amplitude that could be expected by noise. Results suggest that using a constant EEG delay correction in FA analysis does not substantially alter EFR amplitude estimation. In the present study, the lack of substantial variability was likely facilitated by using vowels with small f0 ranges.
期刊介绍:
JARO is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research findings from disciplines related to otolaryngology and communications sciences, including hearing, balance, speech and voice. JARO welcomes submissions describing experimental research that investigates the mechanisms underlying problems of basic and/or clinical significance.
Authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the kinds of papers carried by JARO by looking at past issues. Clinical case studies and pharmaceutical screens are not likely to be considered unless they reveal underlying mechanisms. Methods papers are not encouraged unless they include significant new findings as well. Reviews will be published at the discretion of the editorial board; consult the editor-in-chief before submitting.