Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(02): 095-105
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16017
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Effects of Early- and Late-Arriving Room Reflections on the Speech-Evoked Auditory Brainstem Response

Rida Al Osman
*   School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
,
Christian Giguère
*   School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
,
Hilmi R. Dajani
†   School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Room reverberation alters the acoustical properties of the speech signals reaching our ears, affecting speech understanding. Therefore, it is important to understand the consequences of reverberation on auditory processing. In perceptual studies, the direct sound and early reflections of reverberated speech have been found to constitute useful energy, whereas the late reflections constitute detrimental energy.

Purpose:

This study investigated how various components (direct sound versus early reflections versus late reflections) of the reverberated speech are encoded in the auditory system using the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response (ABR).

Research Design:

Speech-evoked ABRs were recorded using reverberant stimuli created as a result of the convolution between an ongoing synthetic vowel /a/ and each of the following room impulse response (RIR) components: direct sound, early reflections, late reflections, and full reverberation. Four stimuli were produced: direct component, early component, late component, and full component.

Study Sample:

Twelve participants with normal hearing participated in this study.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Waves V and A amplitudes and latencies as well as envelope-following response (EFR) and fine structure frequency–following response (FFR) amplitudes of the speech-evoked ABR were evaluated separately with one-way repeated measures analysis of variances to determine the effect of stimulus. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test were performed to assess significant differences between pairs of stimulus conditions.

Results:

For waves V and A amplitudes, a significant difference or trend toward significance was found between direct and late components, between direct and full components, and between early and late components. For waves V and A latencies, significant differences were found between direct and late components, between direct and full components, between early and late components, and between early and full components. For the EFR and FFR amplitudes, a significant difference or trend toward significance was found between direct and late components, and between early and late components. Moreover, eight, three, and one participant reported the early, full, and late stimuli, respectively, to be the most perceptually similar to the direct stimulus.

Conclusions:

The stimuli that are acoustically most similar (direct and early) result in electrophysiological responses that are not significantly different, whereas the stimuli that are acoustically most different (direct and late, early and late) result in responses that are significantly different across all response measures. These findings provide insights toward the understanding of the effects of the different components of the RIRs on auditory processing of speech.

Key Words

auditory stressors - early reflections - full reflections - late reflections - reverberation - speech-evoked ABR
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Adams EM, Gordon-Hickey S, Morlas H, Moore R. 2012; Effect of rate-alteration on speech perception in noise in older adults with normal hearing and hearing impairment. Am J Audiol 21 (01) 22-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aiken SJ, Picton TW. 2008; Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res 245 1–2 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Al Osman R, Giguere C, Dajani H. 2016; Effects of stimulus rate and noise on speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses. Can J Speech Lang 40 (02) 104-119
    Google Scholar
  • Allen JB, Berkley DA. 1979; Image method for efficiently simulating small‐room acoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 65 (04) 943-950
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements and Guidelines for Schools, Part 1: Permanent Schools. ANSI S12.60–2009/Part 1. 2010. New York, NY: ANSI;
    Google Scholar
  • Anderson S, Kraus N. 2010; Objective neural indices of speech-in-noise perception. Trends Amplif 14 (02) 73-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson S, Kraus N. 2012 cABR: a neural probe of speech-in-noise processing. Proceedings of ISAAR 2011: Speech perception and auditory disorders. 3rd International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, Nyborg, Denmark
    PubMed
  • Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. 2013; Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds predicts self-reported speech-in-noise performance. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (01) 31-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Zecker S, Kraus N. 2010; Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children. Hear Res 270 1–2 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Architectural institute of Japan. 2004 Sound material in living environment “SMILE 2004”. Tokyo: Gilhodo Shuppan Co. Ltd
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Arweiler I, Buchholz JM. 2011; The influence of spectral characteristics of early reflections on speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 130 (02) 996-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Assmann P, Summerfield Q. Perception of speech under adverse conditions. In: Popper AN, Fay RR. 2004. Speech Processing in the Auditory System. 1st ed., Chapter 5. New York, NY: Springer New York, 231–309.
    Google Scholar
  • Banai K, Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. 2009; Reading and subcortical auditory function. Cereb Cortex 19 (11) 2699-2707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bidelman GM, Krishnan A. 2010; Effects of reverberation on brainstem representation of speech in musicians and non-musicians. Brain Res 1355: 112-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Blauert J. 1997. Spatial Hearing: The Psychophysics of Human Sound Localization. Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT press;
    Google Scholar
  • Boothroyd A. 2008. The acoustic speech signal. In: Madel and Flexer, eds. Pediatric Audiology, Chapter 17. New York, NY: Thieme, 159–167
  • Bradley JS. 1986; Speech intelligibility studies in classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 80 (03) 846-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bradley JS, Sato H, Picard M. 2003; On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms. J Acoust Soc Am 113 (06) 3233-3244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Campbell T, Kerlin JR, Bishop CW, Miller LM. 2012; Methods to eliminate stimulus transduction artifact from insert earphones during electroencephalography. Ear Hear 33 (01) 144-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Canadian Standards Association (CSA) CSA-Z412 Guideline on Office Ergonomics. 2000. Toronto, ON: CSA International;
    Google Scholar
  • Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. 2010; The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiology 47 (02) 236-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ. 2000; Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 31 (04) 362-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Devore S, Shinn-Cunningham B. 2003 Perceptual consequences of including reverberation in spatial auditory displays. Proceedings of International Conference on Auditory Displays, Boston, MA
    PubMed
  • Fujihira H, Shiraishi K. 2015; Correlations between word intelligibility under reverberation and speech auditory brainstem responses in elderly listeners. Clin Neurophysiol 126 (01) 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gardner WG. 2002. Reverberation algorithms. In: Kahrs M, Brandenburg K. Applications of Digital Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. Chapter 3. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 85–131.
    Google Scholar
  • Gelfand SA, Silman S. 1979; Effects of small room reverberation upon the recognition of some consonant features. J Acoust Soc Am 66: 22-29
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Giguère C. 2013. Understanding hearing loss: implications for speech perception. In: Fitzpattrick EM, Doucet SP. Audiologic Rehabilitation for Children with Hearing Loss: From Infancy to Adolescence. Chapter 2. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers, 18–28.
    Google Scholar
  • Hazrati O, Loizou PC. 2012; The combined effects of reverberation and noise on speech intelligibility by cochlear implant listeners. Int J Audiol 51 (06) 437-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. 2009; Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-in-noise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106 (31) 13022-13027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Houtgast T, Steeneken HJ. 1985; A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. J Acoust Soc Am 77 (03) 1069-1077
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • International Electrotechnical Commission IEC 60318-4. Electroacoustics: Simulators of the Human Head and Ear. Part4: Occluded-Ear Simulator for the Measurement of Earphones Coupled to the Ear by Means of Ear Inserts. 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: IEC;
    Google Scholar
  • Irwin JD, Graf ER. 1979. Industrial Noise and Vibration Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall;
    Google Scholar
  • Klatt HD. 1980; Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer. J Acoust Soc Am 67: 971-995
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Laroche M, Dajani HR, Prévost F, Marcoux AM. 2013; Brainstem auditory responses to resolved and unresolved harmonics of a synthetic vowel in quiet and noise. Ear Hear 34 (01) 63-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McGovern SG. 2003 A Model for Room Acoustics. https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/5116-room-impulse-response-generator/content/rir.m . Accessed January 2, 2013
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nábĕlek AK, Letowski TR. 1988; Similarities of vowels in nonreverberant and reverberant fields. J Acoust Soc Am 83 (05) 1891-1899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Neuman AC, Wróblewski M, Hajicek J, Rubinstein A. 2010; Combined effects of noise and reverberation on speech recognition performance of normal-hearing children and adults. Ear Hear 31 (03) 336-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pichora-Fuller MK. 2003; Processing speed and timing in aging adults: psychoacoustics, speech perception, and comprehension. Int J Audiol 42 (Suppl 1) S59-S67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Prévost F, Laroche M, Marcoux AM, Dajani HR. 2013; Objective measurement of physiological signal-to-noise gain in the brainstem response to a synthetic vowel. Clin Neurophysiol 124 (01) 52-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Roman N, Woodruff J. 2013; Speech intelligibility in reverberation with ideal binary masking: effects of early reflections and signal-to-noise ratio threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 133 (03) 1707-1717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sayles M, Winter IM. 2008; Reverberation challenges the temporal representation of the pitch of complex sounds. Neuron 58 (05) 789-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Skoe E, Kraus N. 2010; Auditory brain stem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear 31 (03) 302-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. 2011; Perception of speech in noise: neural correlates. J Cogn Neurosci 23 (09) 2268-2279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Song JH, Skoe E, Banai K, Kraus N. 2012; Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cereb Cortex 22 (05) 1180-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tun PA. 1998; Fast noisy speech: age differences in processing rapid speech with background noise. Psychol Aging 13 (03) 424-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wagener KC, Brand T. 2005; Sentence intelligibility in noise for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment: influence of measurement procedure and masking parameters. Int J Audiol 44 (03) 144-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. 2004; Atypical brainstem representation of onset and formant structure of speech sounds in children with language-based learning problems. Biol Psychol 67 (03) 299-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wróblewski M, Lewis DE, Valente DL, Stelmachowicz PG. 2012; Effects of reverberation on speech recognition in stationary and modulated noise by school-aged children and young adults. Ear Hear 33 (06) 731-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Yang W, Bradley JS. 2009; Effects of room acoustics on the intelligibility of speech in classrooms for young children. J Acoust Soc Am 125 (02) 922-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar