Envelope Following Responses Elicited by English Sentences
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Objectives: It would be clinically valuable if an electrophysiological validation of hearing aid effectiveness in conveying speech information could be performed when a device is first provided to the individual after electroacoustic verification. This study evaluated envelope following responses (EFRs) elicited by English vowels in a steady state context and in natural sentences. It was the purpose of this study to determine whether EFRs could be detected rapidly enough to be clinically useful. Design: EFRs were elicited using 5 vowels spanning the English vowel space, /i/, /ε/, /æ/, / /, and /u/. These were presented either as concatenated steady state vowels (total duration 10.04 seconds) or in three 5-word sentences (total duration 11.77 seconds), where each vowel appeared once per sentence. Single-channel electroencephalogram was recorded from vertex (Cz) to the nape of the neck for 190 and 160 repetitions of the steady state vowels and sentences, respectively. The stimuli were presented at 70 dBA SPL. The fundamental frequency (f0) track from the stimuli was used with a Fourier analyzer to estimate the EFRs to each vowel. Noise amplitudes were also calculated at neighboring frequencies. Fifteen normal-hearing subjects who were 20 to 34 years of age participated in the experiment. Results: In the analysis of steady state vowels, the mean response amplitude of /i/ was statistically the largest at 173 nV. The other 4 steady state vowels did not differ in mean response amplitude, which varied between 73 and 106 nV. In the analysis of vowels from the 3 sentences, the largest response amplitudes tended to be for /u/. Mean amplitudes for /u/ were 164, 111, and 140 nV for the words “booed,” “food,” and “Sue,” respectively. The vowel /u/ produced statistically larger responses than /i/, /ε/, and / / when grouped across words, whereas other vowels did not differ. Mean response amplitudes for the other vowel categories in the sentences varied between 82 and 105 nV. All subjects showed significant EFRs in response to the words “Bee’s” and “booed,” but only 9 subjects showed significant EFRs for “pet,” “bed,” and “Bob.” Conclusions: The authors were readily able to detect significant EFRs elicited by vowels in a steady state context and from 3 natural sentences. These results are promising as an early step in developing a clinical tool for validating that vowel stimuli are at least partially encoded at the level of the auditory brainstem. Future research will require evaluation of the technique with aided listeners, where the natural sentences are expected to be treated as typical speech by hearing aid signal-processing algorithms. It would be clinically valuable if an electrophysiological validation of hearing aid effectiveness could be performed when a device is first provided after electroacoustic verification. This study evaluated envelope following responses (EFRs) elicited by English vowels in natural sentences and a steady state context to determine whether EFRs could be detected rapidly enough to be clinically useful. The authors were able to easily detect significant EFRs elicited by vowels in both contexts. These results are promising as an early step in developing a clinical tool for validating that vowel stimuli are at least partially encoded at the level of the auditory brainstem.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».