Robust cortical entrainment to the speech envelope relies on the spectro-temporal fine structure

NeuroImage

Volumn 88, Issue , 2014, Pages 41-46

  Ding, Nai ^a,b   Chatterjee, Monita ^c   Simon, Jonathan Z ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BOYS TOWN NATIONAL RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

Auditory cortex; Auditory scene analysis; Envelope entrainment; MEG

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AUDITORY CORTEX; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BRAIN CORTEX; DELTA RHYTHM; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; NOISE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPEECH DISCRIMINATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VOLUNTEER; YOUNG ADULT; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY PHASE SYNCHRONIZATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ADULT; BRAIN WAVES; CEREBRAL CORTEX; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY PHASE SYNCHRONIZATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETOENCEPHALOGRAPHY; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84892867072     PISSN: 10538119     EISSN: 10959572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.054     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Chait M., Simon J.Z., Poeppel D. Auditory M50 and M100 responses to broadband noise: functional implications. Neuroreport 2004, 15:2455-2458.
2. David S.V., Mesgarani N., Shamma S.A. Estimating sparse spectro-temporal receptive fields with natural stimuli. Netw. Comput. Neural Syst. 2007, 18:191-212.
3. de Cheveigné A., Simon J.Z. Denoising based on time-shift PCA. J. Neurosci. Methods 2007, 165:297-305.
4. de Cheveigné A., Simon J.Z. Denoising based on spatial filtering. J. Neurosci. Methods 2008, 171:331-339.
5. Dean I., Harper N.S., McAlpine D. neural population coding of sound level adapts to stimulus statistics. Nat. Neurosci. 2005, 8:1684-1689.
6. Ding N., Simon J.Z. Emergence of neural encoding of auditory objects while listening to competing speakers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109:11854-11859.
7. Ding N., Simon J.Z. Neural coding of continuous speech in auditory cortex during monaural and dichotic listening. J. Neurophysiol. 2012, 107:78-89.
8. Ding N., Simon J.Z. Adaptive temporal encoding leads to a background-insensitive cortical representation of speech. J. Neurosci. 2013, 33:5728-5735.
9. Friesen L.M., Shannon R.V., Baskent D., Wang X. Speech recognition in noise as a function of the number of spectral channels: comparison of acoustic hearing and cochlear implants. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2001, 110:1150-1163.
10. Giraud A.-L., Poeppel D. Cortical oscillations and speech processing: emerging computational principles and operations. Nat. Neurosci. 2012, 15:511-517.
11. Glasberg B.R., Moore B.C. Derivation of auditory filter shapes from notched-noise data. Hear. Res. 1990, 47:103-138.
12. Henry M.J., Obleser J. Frequency modulation entrains slow neural oscillations and optimizes human listening behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2012, 109:20095-20100.
13. Horton C., D'Zmura M., Srinivasan R. Suppression of competing speech through entrainment of cortical oscillations. J. Neurophys. 2013, 109:3082-3093.
14. Howard M.F., Poeppel D. Discrimination of speech stimuli based on neuronal response phase patterns depends on acoustics but not comprehension. J. Neurophysiol. 2010, 104:2500-2511.
15. Kerlin J.R., Shahin A.J., Miller L.M. Attentional gain control of ongoing cortical speech representations in a "cocktail party". J. Neurosci. 2010, 30:620-628.
16. Luo H., Poeppel D. Phase patterns of neuronal responses reliably discriminate speech in human auditory cortex. Neuron 2007, 54:1001-1010.
17. Lütkenhöner B., Steinsträter O. High-precision neuromagnetic study of the functional organization of the human auditory cortex. Audiol. Neuro Otol. 1998, 3:191-213.
18. Mesgarani N., Chang E.F. Selective cortical representation of attended speaker in multi-talker speech perception. Nature 2012, 485:233-236.
19. Nelken I. Processing of complex sounds in the auditory system. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2008, 18:413-417.
20. Obleser J., Kotz S.A. Expectancy constraints in degraded speech modulate the language comprehension network. Cereb. Cortex 2010, 20:633-640.
21. Obleser J., Weisz N. Suppressed alpha oscillations predict intelligibility of speech and its acoustic details. Cereb. Cortex 2012, 22:2466-2477.
22. Obleser J., Herrmann B., Henry M.J. Neural oscillations in speech: don't be enslaved by the envelope. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2012, 6.
23. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971, 9:97-113.
24. Peelle J.E., Gross J., Davis M.H. Phase-locked responses to speech in human auditory cortex are enhanced during comprehension cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 2013, 10.1093/cercor/bhs1118.
25. Poeppel D., Idsardi W.J., Vv Wassenhove Speech perception at the interface of neurobiology and linguistics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363:1071-1086.
26. Power A.J., Foxe J.J., Forde E.J., Reilly R.B., Lalor E.C. At what time is the cocktail party? A late locus of selective attention to natural speech. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2012, 35:1497-1503.
27. Qin M.K., Oxenham A.J. Effects of simulated cochlear-implant processing on speech reception in fluctuating maskers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2003, 114:446-454.
28. Rabinowitz N.C., Willmore B.D.B., Schnupp J.W.H., King A.J. Contrast gain control in auditory cortex. Neuron 2011, 70:1178-1191.
29. Schroeder C.E., Lakatos P. Low-frequency neuronal oscillations as instruments of sensory selection. Trends Neurosci. 2009, 32:9-18.
30. Schroeder C.E., Lakatos P., Kajikawa Y., Partan S., Puce A. Neuronal oscillations and visual amplification of speech. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12:106-113.
31. Scott S.K., Rosen S., Lang H., Wise R.J. Neural correlates of intelligibility in speech investigated with noise vocoded speech - a positron emission tomography study. J. Acous. Soc. Am. 2006, 120:1075-1083.
32. Shamma S.A., Elhilali M., Micheyl C. Temporal coherence and attention in auditory scene analysis. Trends Neurosci. 2011, 34:114-123.
33. Shannon R.V., Zeng F.-G., Kamath V., Wygonski J., Ekelid M. Speech recognition with primarily temporal cues. Science 1995, 270:303-304.
34. Sheft S. Envelope processing and sound-source perception. Auditory Perception of Sound Sources 2007, Springer, New York. W.A. Yost, A.N. Popper, R.R. Fay (Eds.).
35. Shinn-Cunningham B.G. Object-based auditory and visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008, 12:182-186.
36. Shinn-Cunningham B.G., Best V. selective attention in normal and impaired hearing. Trends in Amplification 2008, 12:283-299.
37. Wang Y., Ding N., Ahmar N., Xiang J., Poeppel D., Simon J.Z. Sensitivity to temporal modulation rate and spectral bandwidth in the human auditory system: MEG evidence. J. Neurophysiol. 2012, 107:2033-2041.
38. Yang X., Wang K., Shamma S.A. Auditory representations of acoustic signals. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 1992, 38:824-839.
39. Yuille A., Kersten D. Vision as Bayesian inference: analysis by synthesis?. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10:301-308.
40. Zion Golumbic E.M., Ding N., Bickel S., Lakatos P., Schevon C.A., McKhann G.M., Goodman R.R., Emerson R., Mehta A.D., Simon J.Z., Poeppel D., Schroeder C.E. Mechanisms underlying selective neuronal tracking of attended speech at a "cocktail party". Neuron 2013, 77:980-991.