Children With Normal Hearing Are Efficient Users of Fundamental Frequency and Vocal Tract Length Cues for Voice Discrimination.
Journal
Ear and hearing
ISSN: 1538-4667
Titre abrégé: Ear Hear
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8005585
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
21
5
2019
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
21
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The ability to discriminate between talkers assists listeners in understanding speech in a multitalker environment. This ability has been shown to be influenced by sensory processing of vocal acoustic cues, such as fundamental frequency (F0) and formant frequencies that reflect the listener's vocal tract length (VTL), and by cognitive processes, such as attention and memory. It is, therefore, suggested that children who exhibit immature sensory and/or cognitive processing will demonstrate poor voice discrimination (VD) compared with young adults. Moreover, greater difficulties in VD may be associated with spectral degradation as in children with cochlear implants. The aim of this study was as follows: (1) to assess the use of F0 cues, VTL cues, and the combination of both cues for VD in normal-hearing (NH) school-age children and to compare their performance with that of NH adults; (2) to assess the influence of spectral degradation by means of vocoded speech on the use of F0 and VTL cues for VD in NH children; and (3) to assess the contribution of attention, working memory, and nonverbal reasoning to performance. Forty-one children, 8 to 11 years of age, were tested with nonvocoded stimuli. Twenty-one of them were also tested with eight-channel, noise-vocoded stimuli. Twenty-one young adults (18 to 35 years) were tested for comparison. A three-interval, three-alternative forced-choice paradigm with an adaptive tracking procedure was used to estimate the difference limens (DLs) for VD when F0, VTL, and F0 + VTL were manipulated separately. Auditory memory, visual attention, and nonverbal reasoning were assessed for all participants. (a) Children' F0 and VTL discrimination abilities were comparable to those of adults, suggesting that most school-age children utilize both cues effectively for VD. (b) Children's VD was associated with trail making test scores that assessed visual attention abilities and speed of processing, possibly reflecting their need to recruit cognitive resources for the task. (c) Best DLs were achieved for the combined (F0 + VTL) manipulation for both children and adults, suggesting that children at this age are already capable of integrating spectral and temporal cues. (d) Both children and adults found the VTL manipulations more beneficial for VD compared with the F0 manipulations, suggesting that formant frequencies are more reliable for identifying a specific speaker than F0. (e) Poorer DLs were achieved with the vocoded stimuli, though the children maintained similar thresholds and pattern of performance among manipulations as the adults. The present study is the first to assess the contribution of F0, VTL, and the combined F0 + VTL to the discrimination of speakers in school-age children. The findings support the notion that many NH school-age children have effective spectral and temporal coding mechanisms that allow sufficient VD, even in the presence of spectrally degraded information. These results may challenge the notion that immature sensory processing underlies poor listening abilities in children, further implying that other processing mechanisms contribute to their difficulties to understand speech in a multitalker environment. These outcomes may also provide insight into VD processes of children under listening conditions that are similar to cochlear implant users.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ability to discriminate between talkers assists listeners in understanding speech in a multitalker environment. This ability has been shown to be influenced by sensory processing of vocal acoustic cues, such as fundamental frequency (F0) and formant frequencies that reflect the listener's vocal tract length (VTL), and by cognitive processes, such as attention and memory. It is, therefore, suggested that children who exhibit immature sensory and/or cognitive processing will demonstrate poor voice discrimination (VD) compared with young adults. Moreover, greater difficulties in VD may be associated with spectral degradation as in children with cochlear implants.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was as follows: (1) to assess the use of F0 cues, VTL cues, and the combination of both cues for VD in normal-hearing (NH) school-age children and to compare their performance with that of NH adults; (2) to assess the influence of spectral degradation by means of vocoded speech on the use of F0 and VTL cues for VD in NH children; and (3) to assess the contribution of attention, working memory, and nonverbal reasoning to performance.
DESIGN
Forty-one children, 8 to 11 years of age, were tested with nonvocoded stimuli. Twenty-one of them were also tested with eight-channel, noise-vocoded stimuli. Twenty-one young adults (18 to 35 years) were tested for comparison. A three-interval, three-alternative forced-choice paradigm with an adaptive tracking procedure was used to estimate the difference limens (DLs) for VD when F0, VTL, and F0 + VTL were manipulated separately. Auditory memory, visual attention, and nonverbal reasoning were assessed for all participants.
RESULTS
(a) Children' F0 and VTL discrimination abilities were comparable to those of adults, suggesting that most school-age children utilize both cues effectively for VD. (b) Children's VD was associated with trail making test scores that assessed visual attention abilities and speed of processing, possibly reflecting their need to recruit cognitive resources for the task. (c) Best DLs were achieved for the combined (F0 + VTL) manipulation for both children and adults, suggesting that children at this age are already capable of integrating spectral and temporal cues. (d) Both children and adults found the VTL manipulations more beneficial for VD compared with the F0 manipulations, suggesting that formant frequencies are more reliable for identifying a specific speaker than F0. (e) Poorer DLs were achieved with the vocoded stimuli, though the children maintained similar thresholds and pattern of performance among manipulations as the adults.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study is the first to assess the contribution of F0, VTL, and the combined F0 + VTL to the discrimination of speakers in school-age children. The findings support the notion that many NH school-age children have effective spectral and temporal coding mechanisms that allow sufficient VD, even in the presence of spectrally degraded information. These results may challenge the notion that immature sensory processing underlies poor listening abilities in children, further implying that other processing mechanisms contribute to their difficulties to understand speech in a multitalker environment. These outcomes may also provide insight into VD processes of children under listening conditions that are similar to cochlear implant users.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31107364
doi: 10.1097/AUD.0000000000000743
pmc: PMC9371943
mid: NIHMS1827804
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
182-193Subventions
Organisme : NIDCD NIH HHS
ID : R01 DC018701
Pays : United States
Références
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 Feb;56(1):13-30
pubmed: 22744138
Dev Sci. 2014 May;17(3):376-87
pubmed: 24612244
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Jan;117(1):305-18
pubmed: 15704423
J Speech Hear Res. 1994 Feb;37(1):205-15
pubmed: 8170124
J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Nov;114(5):2913-22
pubmed: 14650025
J Exp Child Psychol. 1986 Jun;41(3):429-42
pubmed: 3734689
J Acoust Soc Am. 1997 Oct;102(4):2403-11
pubmed: 9348698
J Speech Hear Res. 1995 Apr;38(2):503-11
pubmed: 7596115
J Acoust Soc Am. 1999 Sep;106(3 Pt 1):1511-22
pubmed: 10489707
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Aug;118(2):1072-88
pubmed: 16158662
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2009 May;15(3):438-50
pubmed: 19402930
Curr Biol. 2008 May 6;18(9):689-93
pubmed: 18450447
Curr Biol. 2008 May 6;18(9):694-8
pubmed: 18450446
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000 Feb;43(1):144-57
pubmed: 10668658
Ear Hear. 2018 Jan/Feb;39(1):48-59
pubmed: 28692567
Phonetica. 2008;65(4):210-30
pubmed: 19221452
Ear Hear. 2010 Jun;31(3):336-44
pubmed: 20215967
Child Dev. 1989 Jun;60(3):611-24
pubmed: 2737011
J Acoust Soc Am. 2001 Aug;110(2):1150-63
pubmed: 11519582
Hear Res. 2008 Aug;242(1-2):132-40
pubmed: 18249077
J Acoust Soc Am. 2016 Mar;139(3):EL51-6
pubmed: 27036287
Trends Amplif. 2008 Dec;12(4):316-31
pubmed: 18974203
Lang Speech. 2017 Mar;60(1):27-47
pubmed: 28326988
J Acoust Soc Am. 2015 Mar;137(3):1298-308
pubmed: 25786943
J Acoust Soc Am. 1971 Feb;49(2):Suppl 2:467+
pubmed: 5541744
Otol Neurotol. 2016 Feb;37(2):e75-81
pubmed: 26756159
Dev Psychol. 2015 Mar;51(3):353-69
pubmed: 25706591
Hear Res. 2014 Jan;307:98-110
pubmed: 23968821
J Acoust Soc Am. 2007 Dec;122(6):3628-39
pubmed: 18247770
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Nov;118(5):3177-86
pubmed: 16334696
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999 Oct;42(5):1061-8
pubmed: 10515505
J Acoust Soc Am. 2012 Jan;131(1):501-8
pubmed: 22280611
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Dec;118(6):3816-22
pubmed: 16419826
Hum Brain Mapp. 2010 Mar;31(3):365-77
pubmed: 19777554
Front Psychol. 2013 Aug 30;4:578
pubmed: 24009598
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 May;117(5):3157-64
pubmed: 15957783
J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 May;107(5 Pt 1):2704-10
pubmed: 10830392
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132193
pubmed: 26177102
Ear Hear. 2018 Mar/Apr;39(2):226-237
pubmed: 28799983
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005 Feb;48(1):204-23
pubmed: 15938065
J Speech Hear Res. 1991 Jun;34(3):651-60
pubmed: 2072690
J Acoust Soc Am. 2006 Nov;120(5 Pt 1):2777-88
pubmed: 17139738
J Acoust Soc Am. 2004 Apr;115(4):1777-90
pubmed: 15101656
Int J Audiol. 2007 Sep;46(9):533-51
pubmed: 17828669
ASHA. 1971 Apr;13(4):203-6
pubmed: 5550370
Int J Audiol. 2007 Sep;46(9):460-78
pubmed: 17828663
Ear Hear. 2011 May-Jun;32(3):269-85
pubmed: 21233712
Ear Hear. 1982 Nov-Dec;3(6):301-8
pubmed: 7152153
Ear Hear. 2016 Jan-Feb;37(1):55-63
pubmed: 26226605
Clin Neurophysiol. 2000 Feb;111(2):220-36
pubmed: 10680557
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Aug;130(2):1006-19
pubmed: 21877813
Br Med Bull. 2002;63:171-81
pubmed: 12324392
J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 Jan-Feb;105(1-2):38-50
pubmed: 19822327
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2007 Nov;29(8):842-53
pubmed: 17852593
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Feb;125(2):1050-8
pubmed: 19206879
J Speech Hear Res. 1989 Jun;32(2):317-22
pubmed: 2739383
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Jul;130(1):429-39
pubmed: 21786910
Trends Hear. 2018 Jan-Dec;22:2331216518790902
pubmed: 30062912
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004 Mar;19(2):203-14
pubmed: 15010086
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009 Jun;52(3):682-95
pubmed: 18952853
Hear Res. 2008 Apr;238(1-2):147-54
pubmed: 18222053
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2014 Dec;15(6):1037-48
pubmed: 25172111
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014 Feb;57(1):285-96
pubmed: 23882002
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Apr;51(2):485-501
pubmed: 18367691
Otol Neurotol. 2019 Mar;40(3):e316-e325
pubmed: 30741913
J Acoust Soc Am. 2018 Apr;143(4):EL292
pubmed: 29716273
J Pediatr Psychol. 2013 Sep;38(8):902-14
pubmed: 23699747
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Nov;118(5):3164-76
pubmed: 16334898
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Dec 20;60(12):3656-3666
pubmed: 29230476
Science. 1995 Oct 13;270(5234):303-4
pubmed: 7569981
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Sep;118(3 Pt 1):1605-13
pubmed: 16247871
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2015 Jul;77(5):1465-87
pubmed: 25828463
J Acoust Soc Am. 2005 Sep;118(3 Pt 1):1711-8
pubmed: 16240829
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2018 Apr;19(2):193-209
pubmed: 29313147
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Oct 17;60(10):2989-3000
pubmed: 29049599
Audiol Neurootol. 2007;12(1):13-9
pubmed: 17033160
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Feb;125(2):1114-24
pubmed: 19206886
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007 Jul;133(7):677-83
pubmed: 17638781
J Acoust Soc Am. 1994 Jun;95(6):3529-40
pubmed: 8046144
J Voice. 2006 Mar;20(1):18-24
pubmed: 15979277
J Assoc Res Otolaryngol. 2004 Sep;5(3):253-60
pubmed: 15492884