Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses: Effects of Background, Stimulus Duration, Consonant-Vowel, and Number of Epochs.
Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses: Effects of Background, Stimulus Duration, Consonant-Vowel, and Number of Epochs.
复制标题
语音听觉的脑干反应：背景，刺激持续时间，辅音元音和时代数量的影响。
DOI：
10.1097/aud.0000000000000648
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Kluk K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BinKhamis G;Léger A;Bell SL;Prendergast G;O'Driscoll M;Kluk K
补充数字内容可在文本中找到。本研究的目的是系统探讨刺激时间、背景（安静与噪音）和三个辅音-元音对言语-听觉脑干反应（ABRs）的影响。此外，还评估了记录具有清晰可识别波形成分的语音abr所需的最小epoch数。目的是评估短时间刺激是否可以可靠地用于记录安静和背景噪音中三个辅音-元音的语音abr，而不是文献中常用的长时间刺激。更短的刺激时间和更少的时间点需要更短的测试时间，从而鼓励言语abr从研究向临床实践的过渡。本研究收集了12例正常听力成人在40 msec [da]、50 msec [ba] [da] [ga]和170 msec [ba] [da] [ga]刺激下的语音- abr。使用双通道电极蒙太奇（cz主动、A1和a2参考、fz接地），在安静、40 msec [da]、50 msec [ba] [da]和170 msec [da]背景下记录单耳（右耳）语音abr。每个刺激和背景从所有参与者那里收集了12000个epoch（每个极性6000个）。在不同的背景（安静和噪音）、不同的刺激持续时间（50和170毫秒）和不同的辅音-元音（[ba]、[da]和[ga]）下，比较言语- abr峰（V、A、D、E、F、O）的潜伏期和振幅。此外，在170毫秒[da]的语音abr中，对刺激基频的锁相程度（在安静与噪音情况下）进行了评估。最后，在不同的历元迭代下，使用Fsp统计和自引导分析来评估鲁棒响应所需的历元数。背景效应：无论刺激持续时间如何，背景噪声的加入导致语音abr的峰值潜伏期比安静时的语音abr长，峰值振幅比安静时的语音abr小。然而，在170 msec的语音abr中，背景噪声对刺激基频响应后频率的锁相程度没有影响[da]。持续时间效应：在50和170毫秒刺激下，语音- abr峰值潜伏期和振幅无显著差异。辅音-元音效应：不同的辅音-元音对语音- abr峰值潜伏期没有影响，与刺激持续时间无关。epoch数：在噪声条件下记录语音abr所需的epoch数要大于在安静条件下记录语音abr所需的epoch数，而将语音abr记录到40 msec [da]所需的epoch数要小于170 msec [da]。这是第一个系统地从刺激持续时间、背景噪声和epoch数量等方面调查语音- abr的临床可行性的研究。即使在背景噪声中呈现，语音abr也可以可靠地记录到40毫秒[da]而不影响响应质量。因为40毫秒[日]所需的时间更少，这将是临床使用的最佳刺激。最后，考虑到辅音-元音对语音- abr峰值潜伏期没有影响，没有证据表明语音- abr适用于评估所使用刺激的听觉辨别。
Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. The aims of this study were to systematically explore the effects of stimulus duration, background (quiet versus noise), and three consonant–vowels on speech-auditory brainstem responses (ABRs). Additionally, the minimum number of epochs required to record speech-ABRs with clearly identifiable waveform components was assessed. The purpose was to evaluate whether shorter duration stimuli could be reliably used to record speech-ABRs both in quiet and in background noise to the three consonant–vowels, as opposed to longer duration stimuli that are commonly used in the literature. Shorter duration stimuli and a smaller number of epochs would require shorter test sessions and thus encourage the transition of the speech-ABR from research to clinical practice. Speech-ABRs in response to 40 msec [da], 50 msec [ba] [da] [ga], and 170 msec [ba] [da] [ga] stimuli were collected from 12 normal-hearing adults with confirmed normal click-ABRs. Monaural (right-ear) speech-ABRs were recorded to all stimuli in quiet and to 40 msec [da], 50 msec [ba] [da] [ga], and 170 msec [da] in a background of two-talker babble at +10 dB signal to noise ratio using a 2-channel electrode montage (Cz-Active, A1 and A2-reference, Fz-ground). Twelve thousand epochs (6000 per polarity) were collected for each stimulus and background from all participants. Latencies and amplitudes of speech-ABR peaks (V, A, D, E, F, O) were compared across backgrounds (quiet and noise) for all stimulus durations, across stimulus durations (50 and 170 msec) and across consonant–vowels ([ba], [da], and [ga]). Additionally, degree of phase locking to the stimulus fundamental frequency (in quiet versus noise) was evaluated for the frequency following response in speech-ABRs to the 170 msec [da]. Finally, the number of epochs required for a robust response was evaluated using Fsp statistic and bootstrap analysis at different epoch iterations. Background effect: the addition of background noise resulted in speech-ABRs with longer peak latencies and smaller peak amplitudes compared with speech-ABRs in quiet, irrespective of stimulus duration. However, there was no effect of background noise on the degree of phase locking of the frequency following response to the stimulus fundamental frequency in speech-ABRs to the 170 msec [da]. Duration effect: speech-ABR peak latencies and amplitudes did not differ in response to the 50 and 170 msec stimuli. Consonant–vowel effect: different consonant–vowels did not have an effect on speech-ABR peak latencies regardless of stimulus duration. Number of epochs: a larger number of epochs was required to record speech-ABRs in noise compared with in quiet, and a smaller number of epochs was required to record speech-ABRs to the 40 msec [da] compared with the 170 msec [da]. This is the first study that systematically investigated the clinical feasibility of speech-ABRs in terms of stimulus duration, background noise, and number of epochs. Speech-ABRs can be reliably recorded to the 40 msec [da] without compromising response quality even when presented in background noise. Because fewer epochs were needed for the 40 msec [da], this would be the optimal stimulus for clinical use. Finally, given that there was no effect of consonant–vowel on speech-ABR peak latencies, there is no evidence that speech-ABRs are suitable for assessing auditory discrimination of the stimuli used.