Informational Masking Effects of Similarity and Uncertainty on Early and Late Stages of Auditory Cortical Processing
- PMID: 33416259
- DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000997
Informational Masking Effects of Similarity and Uncertainty on Early and Late Stages of Auditory Cortical Processing
Abstract
Purpose: Understanding speech in a background of other people talking is a difficult listening situation for hearing-impaired individuals, and even for those with normal hearing. Speech-on-speech masking is known to contribute to increased perceptual difficulty over nonspeech background noise because of informational masking provided over and above the effects of energetic masking. While informational masking research has identified factors of similarity and uncertainty between target and masker that contribute to reduced behavioral performance in speech background noise, critical gaps in knowledge including the underlying neural-perceptual processes remain. By systematically manipulating aspects of acoustic similarity and uncertainty in the same auditory paradigm, the current study examined the time course and objectively quantified these informational masking effects at both early and late stages of auditory processing using auditory evoked potentials (AEPs).
Method: Thirty participants were included in a cross-sectional repeated measures design. Target-masker similarity was manipulated by varying the linguistic/phonetic similarity (i.e., language) of the talkers in the background. Specifically, four levels representing hypothesized increasing levels of informational masking were implemented: (1) no masker (quiet); (2) Mandarin; (3) Dutch; and (4) English. Stimulus uncertainty was manipulated by task complexity, specifically presentation of target-to-target interval (TTI) in the auditory evoked paradigm. Participants had to discriminate between English word stimuli (/bæt/ and /pæt/) presented in an oddball paradigm under each masker condition pressing buttons to either the target or standard stimulus. Responses were recorded simultaneously for P1-N1-P2 (standard waveform) and P3 (target waveform). This design allowed for simultaneous recording of multiple AEP peaks, as well as accuracy, reaction time, and d' behavioral discrimination to button press responses.
Results: Several trends in AEP components were consistent with effects of increasing linguistic/phonetic similarity and stimulus uncertainty. All babble maskers significantly affected outcomes compared to quiet. In addition, the native language English masker had the largest effect on outcomes in the AEP paradigm, including reduced P3 amplitude and area, as well as decreased accuracy and d' behavioral discrimination to target word responses. AEP outcomes for the Mandarin and Dutch maskers, however, were not significantly different across any measured component. Latency outcomes for both N1 and P3 also supported an effect of stimulus uncertainty, consistent with increased processing time related to greater task complexity. An unanticipated result was the absence of the interaction of linguistic/phonetic similarity and stimulus uncertainty.
Conclusions: Observable effects of both similarity and uncertainty were evidenced at a level of the P3 more than the earlier N1 level of auditory cortical processing suggesting that higher-level active auditory processing may be more sensitive to informational masking deficits. The lack of significant interaction between similarity and uncertainty at either level of processing suggests that these informational masking factors operated independently. Speech babble maskers across languages altered AEP component measures, behavioral detection, and reaction time. Specifically, this occurred when the babble was in the native/same language as the target, while the effects of foreign language maskers did not differ. The objective results from this study provide a foundation for further investigation of how the linguistic content of target and masker and task difficulty contribute to difficulty understanding speech-in-noise.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Similar articles
-
Informational Masking Effects on Neural Encoding of Stimulus Onset and Acoustic Change.Ear Hear. 2019 Jan/Feb;40(1):156-167. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000604. Ear Hear. 2019. PMID: 29782442
-
Informational Masking Effects of Speech Versus Nonspeech Noise on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials.J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021 Oct 4;64(10):4014-4029. doi: 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00048. Epub 2021 Aug 31. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021. PMID: 34464537
-
Effectiveness of Two-Talker Maskers That Differ in Talker Congruity and Perceptual Similarity to the Target Speech.Trends Hear. 2017 Jan-Dec;21:2331216517709385. doi: 10.1177/2331216517709385. Trends Hear. 2017. PMID: 29169315 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of Modulated Masking on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potential in Normal Hearing Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Apr 12;28(4):e708-e719. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1782629. eCollection 2024 Oct. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2024. PMID: 39464368 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Speech perception in noise: Masking and unmasking.J Otol. 2021 Apr;16(2):109-119. doi: 10.1016/j.joto.2020.12.001. Epub 2020 Dec 11. J Otol. 2021. PMID: 33777124 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Selective auditory attention modulates cortical responses to sound location change for speech in quiet and in babble.PLoS One. 2023 Jan 13;18(1):e0268932. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268932. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 36638116 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Alho K. Selective attention in auditory processing as reflected by event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, (1992). 29, 247–263.
-
- Bennett K. O., Billings C. J., Molis M. R., Leek M. R. Neural encoding and perception of speech signals in informational masking. Ear Hear, (2012). 33, 231–238.
-
- Bertoli S., Smurzynski J., Probst R. Effects of age, age-related hearing loss, and contralateral cafeteria noise on the discrimination of small frequency changes: Psychoacoustic and electrophysiological measures. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, (2005). 6, 207–222.
-
- Billings C. J., Bennett K. O., Molis M. R., Leek M. R. Cortical encoding of signals in noise: Effects of stimulus type and recording paradigm. Ear Hear, (2011). 32, 53–60.
-
- Billings C. J., McMillan G. P., Penman T. M., Gille S. M. Predicting perception in noise using cortical auditory evoked potentials. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol, (2013). 14, 891–903.
REFERENCE NOTES
-
- L. Calandruccio, PhD. (2019). Video call (Zoom Web conference), May 14.
-
- S. Brouwer, PhD. (2019). Video call (Zoom Web conference), June 12.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
