Download PDF
Semin Hear 2022; 43(03): 223-239
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756165
Review Article

The Influence of Male- and Female-Spoken Vowel Acoustics on Envelope-Following Responses

Vijayalakshmi Easwar
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders & Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison
2   Department of Communication Sciences, National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia
,
David Purcell
3   National Center for Audiology, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, Canada
,
Maaike Van Eeckhoutte
4   Division of Hearing Systems, Department of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
5   Copenhagen Hearing and Balance Centre - Ear, Nose, Throat and Audiology Clinic, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
6   National Center for Audiology, Western University, London, Canada
,
Steven J. Aiken
7   School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Departments of Surgery and Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The influence of male and female vowel characteristics on the envelope-following responses (EFRs) is not well understood. This study explored the role of vowel characteristics on the EFR at the fundamental frequency (f0) in response to the vowel /ε/ (as in “head”). Vowel tokens were spoken by five males and five females and EFRs were measured in 25 young adults (21 females). An auditory model was used to estimate changes in auditory processing that might account for talker effects on EFR amplitude. There were several differences between male and female vowels in relation to the EFR. For male talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the bandwidth and harmonic count of the first formant, and the amplitude of the trough below the second formant. For female talkers, EFR amplitudes were correlated with the range of f0 frequencies and the amplitude of the trough above the second formant. The model suggested that the f0 EFR reflects a wide distribution of energy in speech, with primary contributions from high-frequency harmonics mediated from cochlear regions basal to the peaks of the first and second formants, not from low-frequency harmonics with energy near f0. Vowels produced by female talkers tend to produce lower-amplitude EFR, likely because they depend on higher-frequency harmonics where speech sound levels tend to be lower. This work advances auditory electrophysiology by showing how the EFR evoked by speech relates to the acoustics of speech, for both male and female voices.

Keywords

frequency-following response - simulation - formant - harmonics - fundamental frequency


Publication History

Article published online:
26 October 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Van Canneyt J, Wouters J, Francart T. Neural tracking of the fundamental frequency of the voice: the effect of voice characteristics. Eur J Neurosci 2021; 53 (11) 3640-3653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hillenbrand J, Getty LA, Clark MJ, Wheeler K. Acoustic characteristics of American English vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (5, Pt 1): 3099-3111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Peterson GE, Barney HL. Control methods used in a study of the vowels. J Acoust Soc Am 1952; 24 (02) 175-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Klatt DH, Klatt LC. Analysis, synthesis, and perception of voice quality variations among female and male talkers. J Acoust Soc Am 1990; 87 (02) 820-857
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Huber JE, Stathopoulos ET, Curione GM, Ash TA, Johnson K. Formants of children, women, and men: the effects of vocal intensity variation. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 106 (3, Pt 1): 1532-1542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Easwar V, Bridgwater E, Purcell D. The influence of vowel identity, vowel production variability, and consonant environment on envelope following responses. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (03) 662-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Easwar V, Boothalingam S, Flaherty R. Fundamental frequency-dependent changes in vowel-evoked envelope following responses. Hear Res 2021; 408: 108297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Van Canneyt J, Wouters J, Francart T. From modulated noise to natural speech: The effect of stimulus parameters on the envelope following response. Hear Res 2020; 393: 107993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tichko P, Skoe E. Frequency-dependent fine structure in the frequency-following response: the byproduct of multiple generators. Hear Res 2017; 348: 1-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Purcell DW, John SM, Schneider BA, Picton TW. Human temporal auditory acuity as assessed by envelope following responses. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 116 (06) 3581-3593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kuwada S, Anderson JS, Batra R, Fitzpatrick DC, Teissier N, D'Angelo WR. Sources of the scalp-recorded amplitude-modulation following response. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (04) 188-204
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nuttall AL, Ricci AJ, Burwood G. et al. A mechanoelectrical mechanism for detection of sound envelopes in the hearing organ. Nat Commun 2018; 9 (01) 4175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aiken SJ, Picton TW. Envelope following responses to natural vowels. Audiol Neurotol 2006; 11 (04) 213-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Easwar V, Purcell DW, Aiken SJ, Parsa V, Scollie SD. Effect of stimulus level and bandwidth on speech-evoked envelope following responses in adults with normal hearing. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (06) 619-634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Easwar V, Banyard A, Aiken SJ, Purcell DW. Phase-locked responses to the vowel envelope vary in scalp-recorded amplitude due to across-frequency response interactions. Eur J Neurosci 2018; 48 (10) 3126-3145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Easwar V, Banyard A, Aiken S, Purcell D. Phase delays between tone pairs reveal interactions in scalp-recorded envelope following responses. Neurosci Lett 2018; 665: 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Laroche M, Dajani HRR, Prévost F, Marcoux AM. Brainstem auditory responses to resolved and unresolved harmonics of a synthetic vowel in quiet and noise. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (01) 63-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Choi JM, Purcell DW, Coyne JAM, Aiken SJ. Envelope following responses elicited by English sentences. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (05) 637-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhu L, Bharadwaj H, Xia J, Shinn-Cunningham B. A comparison of spectral magnitude and phase-locking value analyses of the frequency-following response to complex tones. J Acoust Soc Am 2013; 134 (01) 384-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lins OG, Picton PE, Picton TW, Champagne SC, Durieux-Smith A. Auditory steady-state responses to tones amplitude-modulated at 80-110 Hz. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (5, Pt 1): 3051-3063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Easwar V, Birstler J, Harrison A, Scollie S, Purcell D. The influence of sensation level on speech-evoked envelope following responses. Ear Hear 2022; 43 (01) 250-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Bidelman G, Powers L. Response properties of the human frequency-following response (FFR) to speech and non-speech sounds: level dependence, adaptation and phase-locking limits. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (09) 665-672
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Akhoun I, Gallégo S, Moulin A. et al. The temporal relationship between speech auditory brainstem responses and the acoustic pattern of the phoneme /ba/ in normal-hearing adults. Clin Neurophysiol 2008; 119 (04) 922-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Guérit F, Marozeau J, Epp B. Linear combination of auditory steady-state responses evoked by co-modulated tones. J Acoust Soc Am 2017; 142 (04) EL395-EL400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Carney LH. Supra-threshold hearing and fluctuation profiles: implications for sensorineural and hidden hearing loss. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2018; 19 (04) 331-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Delgutte B, Kiang NYS. Speech coding in the auditory nerve: I. Vowel-like sounds. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 75 (03) 866-878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Young ED. Neural representation of spectral and temporal information in speech. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2008; 363 (1493): 923-945
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Miller RL, Calhoun BM, Young ED. Discriminability of vowel representations in cat auditory-nerve fibers after acoustic trauma. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105 (01) 311-325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jeng FC, Costilow CE, Stangherlin DP, Lin CD. Relative power of harmonics in human frequency-following responses associated with voice pitch in American and Chinese adults. Percept Mot Skills 2011; 113 (01) 67-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Zecker S, Kraus N. Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children. Hear Res 2010; 270 (1-2): 151-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Easwar V, Purcell DW, Aiken SJ, Parsa V, Scollie SD. Evaluation of speech-evoked envelope following responses as an objective aided outcome measure: effect of stimulus level, bandwidth, and amplification in adults with hearing loss. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (06) 635-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Verhulst S, Altoè A, Vasilkov V. Computational modeling of the human auditory periphery: auditory-nerve responses, evoked potentials and hearing loss. Hear Res 2018; 360: 55-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Stevens KN, House AS. Perturbation of vowel articulations by consonantal context: an acoustical study. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 6 (02) 111-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Boersma P. Praat: a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot Int 2001; 5 (9–10): 341-345
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Aiken SJ, Picton TW. Envelope and spectral frequency-following responses to vowel sounds. Hear Res 2008; 245 (1-2): 35-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cohen LT, Rickards FW, Clark GM. A comparison of steady-state evoked potentials to modulated tones in awake and sleeping humans. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 90 (05) 2467-2479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 John MS, Picton TW. Human auditory steady-state responses to amplitude-modulated tones: phase and latency measurements. Hear Res 2000; 141 (1-2): 57-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Picton TW, John MS, Dimitrijevic A, Purcell D. Human auditory steady-state responses. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 (04) 177-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Easwar V, Aiken S, Beh K. et al. Variability in the estimated amplitude of vowel-evoked envelope following responses caused by assumed neurophysiologic processing delays. J Assoc Res Otolaryngol 2024 Published online ahead of print. Available at: Accessed September 14, 2022 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10162-022-00855-1.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 1995; 57 (01) 289-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Easwar V, Beamish L, Aiken S, Choi JM, Scollie S, Purcell D. Sensitivity of envelope following responses to vowel polarity. Hear Res 2015; 320: 38-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR. Behavioural measurement of level-dependent shifts in the vibration pattern on the basilar membrane. Hear Res 2002; 163 (1-2): 101-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Moore BCJ, Gockel HE. Resolvability of components in complex tones and implications for theories of pitch perception. Hear Res 2011; 276 (1-2): 88-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar