Auditory skills and brain morphology predict individual differences in adaptation to degraded speech

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 2012, Pages 2154-2164

  Erb, Julia ^a   Henry, Molly J ^a   Eisner, Frank ^b   Obleser, Jonas ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Amplitude modulation rate; Cochlear implant simulation; Language; Noise vocoded speech; Perceptual learning; Voxel based morphometry

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY SYSTEM; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; COGNITION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; GRAY MATTER; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROANATOMY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PULVINAR; SKILL; SPEECH DISORDER; SPEECH PERCEPTION; THALAMUS; VOXEL BASED MORPHOMETRY; WORKING MEMORY;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; BRAIN; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INDIVIDUALITY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MEMORY, SHORT-TERM; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84863858128     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: 18733514     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.05.013     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Adank P., Devlin J.T. On-line plasticity in spoken sentence comprehension: Adapting to time-compressed speech. Neuroimage 2010, 49:1124-1132.
2. Amitay S., Hawkey D.J., Moore D.R. Auditory frequency discrimination learning is affected by stimulus variability. Perception and Psychophysics 2005, 67:691-698.
3. Anderson J.R., Schooler L.J. Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science 1991, 2:396-408.
4. Ashburner J. A fast diffeomorphic image registration algorithm. Neuroimage 2007, 38:95-113.
5. Ashburner J. Computational anatomy with the SPM software. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2009, 27:1163-1174.
6. Ashburner J., Friston K.J. Voxel-based morphometry-the methods. Neuroimage 2000, 11:805-821.
7. Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology 2012, 63:1-29.
8. Barkat T.R., Polley D.B., Hensch T.K. A critical period for auditory thalamocortical connectivity. Nature Neuroscience 2011, 14:1189-1194.
9. Behrens T.E., Johansen-Berg H., Woolrich M.W., Smith S.M., Wheeler-Kingshott C.A., Boulby P.A., et al. Non-invasive mapping of connections between human thalamus and cortex using diffusion imaging. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6:750-757.
10. Bejjanki V.R., Beck J.M., Lu Z.L., Pouget A. Perceptual learning as improved probabilistic inference in early sensory areas. Nature Neuroscience 2011, 14:642-648.
11. Blamey P.J., Sarant J.Z., Paatsch L.E., Barry J.G., Bow C.P., Wales R.J., et al. Relationships among speech perception, production, language, hearing loss, and age in children with impaired hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2001, 44:264-285.
12. Bradlow A.R., Bent T. Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech. Cognition 2008, 106:707-729.
13. Brett, M., Anton, J., Valabregue, R., & Poline, J. (2002). Region of interest analysis using an SPM toolbox. Presentation at the 8th International Conference on Functional Mapping of the Human Brain, Sendai, Japan, June 2-6, 2002.
14. Burkholder R.A., Pisoni D.B., Svirsky M.A. Effects of a cochlear implant simulation on immediate memory in normal-hearing adults. International Journal of Audiology 2005, 44:551-558.
15. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S. Hearing speech sounds: top-down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing Research 2007, 229:132-147.
16. Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S., Hervais-Adelman A., Taylor K., McGettigan C. Lexical information drives perceptual learning of distorted speech: evidence from the comprehension of noise-vocoded sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 2005, 134:222-241.
17. Drullman R., Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effect of reducing slow temporal modulations on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 95:2670-2680.
18. Drullman R., Festen J.M., Plomp R. Effect of temporal envelope smearing on speech reception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1994, 95:1053-1064.
19. Dupoux E., Green K. Perceptual adjustment to highly compressed speech: effects of talker and rate changes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1997, 23:914-927.
20. Eisner F., McGettigan C., Faulkner A., Rosen S., Scott S.K. Inferior frontal gyrus activation predicts individual differences in perceptual learning of cochlear-implant simulations. Journal of Neuroscience 2010, 30:7179-7186.
21. Fitzgerald M.B., Wright B.A. Perceptual learning and generalization resulting from training on an auditory amplitude-modulation detection task. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2011, 129:898-906.
22. Gathercole S.E., Willis C.S., Baddeley A.D., Emslie H. The children's test of nonword repetition: a test of phonological working memory. Memory 1994, 2:103-127.
23. Giraud A.L., Lorenzi C., Ashburner J., Wable J., Johnsrude I., Frackowiak R., et al. Representation of the temporal envelope of sounds in the human brain. Journal of Neurophysiology 2000, 84:1588-1598.
24. Golestani N., Paus T., Zatorre R.J. Anatomical correlates of learning novel speech sounds. Neuron 2002, 35:997-1010.
25. Greenwood D.D. A cochlear frequency-position function for several species-29 years later. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1990, 87:2592-2605.
26. Hackett T.A., Smiley J.F., Ulbert I., Karmos G., Lakatos P., de la Mothe L.A., et al. Sources of somatosensory input to the caudal belt areas of auditory cortex. Perception 2007, 36:1419-1430.
27. Hayasaka S., Phan K.L., Liberzon I., Worsley K.J., Nichols T.E. Nonstationary cluster-size inference with random field and permutation methods. Neuroimage 2004, 22:676-687.
28. Hervais-Adelman A., Davis M.H., Johnsrude I.S., Carlyon R.P. Perceptual learning of noise vocoded words: effects of feedback and lexicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2008, 34:460-474.
29. Houtgast T., Steeneken H.J. A review of the MTF concept in room acoustics and its use for estimating speech intelligibility in auditoria. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1985, 77:1069-1077.
30. Hyde K.L., Lerch J.P., Zatorre R.J., Griffiths T.D., Evans A.C., Peretz I. Cortical thickness in congenital amusia: when less is better than more. Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 27:13028-13032.
31. Idemaru K., Holt L.L. Word recognition reflects dimension-based statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2011, 37:1939-1956.
32. Jacquemot C., Scott S.K. What is the relationship between phonological short-term memory and speech processing?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2006, 10:480-486.
33. Johnson M.D., Ojemann G.A. The role of the human thalamus in language and memory: evidence from electrophysiological studies. Brain and Cognition 2000, 42:218-230.
34. Kalikow D.N., Stevens K.N., Elliott L.L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1977, 61:1337-1351.
35. Lazard D.S., Giraud A.L., Truy E., Lee H.J. Evolution of non-speech sound memory in postlingual deafness: implications for cochlear implant rehabilitation. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49:2475-2482.
36. Lazard D.S., Lee H.J., Gaebler M., Kell C.A., Truy E., Giraud A.L. Phonological processing in post-lingual deafness and cochlear implant outcome. Neuroimage 2010, 49:3443-3451.
37. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: a user's guide 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 219-220. 2nd ed.
38. Mattys S.L., Brooks J., Cooke M. Recognizing speech under a processing load: dissociating energetic from informational factors. Cognitive Psychology 2009, 59:203-243.
39. Miller P., Wingfield A. Distinct effects of perceptual quality on auditory word recognition, memory formation and recall in a neural model of sequential memory. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 2010, 4:14.
40. Mottier G. Examination of the speech of children with reading difficulties. Folia Phoniatrica (Basel) 1951, 3:170-177.
41. Obleser J., Wise R.J., Alex Dresner M., Scott S.K. Functional integration across brain regions improves speech perception under adverse listening conditions. Journal of Neuroscience 2007, 27:2283-2289.
42. Pallier C., Sebastian-Galles N., Dupoux E., Christophe A., Mehler J. Perceptual adjustment to time-compressed speech: a cross-linguistic study. Memory and Cognition 1998, 26:844-851.
43. Peelle J.E., Cusack R., Henson R.N. Adjusting for global effects in voxel-based morphometry: gray matter decline in normal aging. Neuroimage 2012, 60:1503-1516.
44. Peelle, J. E., Olafsen, T., Davis, M. H., & Wingfield, A. (2010). Perceptual learning in speech comprehension governed by power law dynamics. Poster presentation at the 40th SfN annual meeting, San Diego, US, November 13-17, 2010.
45. Peelle J.E., Troiani V., Grossman M., Wingfield A. Hearing loss in older adults affects neural systems supporting speech comprehension. Journal of Neuroscience 2011, 31:12638-12643.
46. Piquado T., Cousins K.A., Wingfield A., Miller P. Effects of degraded sensory input on memory for speech: behavioral data and a test of biologically constrained computational models. Brain Research 2010, 1365:48-65.
47. Pisoni D.B., Cleary M. Measures of working memory span and verbal rehearsal speed in deaf children after cochlear implantation. Ear and Hearing 2003, 24:106S-120S.
48. Rabbitt P.M. Channel-capacity, intelligibility and immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1968, 20:241-248.
49. Romani C., Martin R. A deficit in the short-term retention of lexical-semantic information: forgetting words but remembering a story. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1999, 128:56-77.
50. Rorden C., Brett M. Stereotaxic display of brain lesions. Behavioural Neurology 2000, 12:191-200.
51. Rosen S., Faulkner A., Wilkinson L. Adaptation by normal listeners to upward spectral shifts of speech: implications for cochlear implants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1999, 106:3629-3636.
52. Sarant J.Z., Blamey P.J., Dowell R.C., Clark G.M., Gibson W.P. Variation in speech perception scores among children with cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing 2001, 22:18-28.
53. Schwarz, Gideon E. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 1978, 6(2):461-464.
54. Sebastian-Galles N., Dupoux E., Costa A., Mehler J. Adaptation to time-compressed speech: phonological determinants. Perception and Psychophysics 2000, 62:834-842.
55. Shannon R.V., Galvin J.J., Baskent D. Holes in hearing. Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology 2002, 3:185-199.
56. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
57. Song J.H., Skoe E., Banai K., Kraus N. Training to improve hearing speech in noise: biological mechanisms. Cerebral Cortex. 2011.
58. Stacey P.C., Summerfield A.Q. Effectiveness of computer-based auditory training in improving the perception of noise-vocoded speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 2007, 121:2923-2935.
59. Tomoda A., Kinoshita S., Korenaga Y., Mabe H. Pseudohypacusis in childhood and adolescence is associated with increased gray matter volume in the medial frontal gyrus and superior temporal gyrus. Cortex 2012, 48:492-503.
60. Van Tasell D.J., Soli S.D., Kirby V.M., Widin G.P. Speech waveform envelope cues for consonant recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1987, 82:1152-1161.
61. Viemeister N.F. Temporal modulation transfer functions based upon modulation thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1979, 66:1364-1380.
62. von Kriegstein K., Patterson R.D., Griffiths T.D. Task-dependent modulation of medial geniculate body is behaviorally relevant for speech recognition. Current Biology 2008, 18:1855-1859.
63. Wakefield G.H., Viemeister N.F. Discrimination of modulation depth of sinusoidal amplitude modulation (SAM) noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 1990, 88:1367-1373.