Envelope-insensitive phonetic EEG indices may monitor cochlear-implant patients’ phonetic discrimination.

Evidence

EEG has been shown to be sensitive to phonetic-features of speech (Di Liberto et al. 2015 ). These categorical features capture information to which the envelope of speech is not sensitive, however the actual contribution of higher-level active processes related to intelligibility remains unclear. The framework we have defined here has the potential to disentangle these contributions from low-level EEG responses to spectrogram fluctuations. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4429 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The phonemic (Ph) representation was computed using forced alignment (Yuan and Liberman 2008 ), given a speech file and the correspondent orthographic transcription broken into 26 phonemes in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). A multivariate time-series composed of 26 indicator variables was then obtained. … The phonetic features (Fea) encoding is a linear mapping of the phonetic representation into a space of 18 features (Mesgarani et al. 2014 ), which describe specific articulatory and acoustic properties of the speech phonetic content (Chomsky and Halle 1968 ). In particular, the chosen features are related to the manner and place of articulation, to the voicing of a consonant, and to the backness of a vowel. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4371 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Objective IPM-based EEG measures could guide bilateral cochlear implant fitting; Categorical phonetic features encode EEG information the speech envelope lacks — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4429; Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations (+2 more)

Related

• Categorical phonetic features encode EEG information the speech envelope lacks (similarity 0.84)
• Combining electric implant with residual acoustic hearing improves pitch perception (similarity 0.83)
• Objective IPM-based EEG measures could guide bilateral cochlear implant fitting (similarity 0.82)
• Pitch-ranking can identify which cochlear implant electrodes are safe to deactivate (similarity 0.81)
• Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes based on pitch ranking worsens spectral resolution without improving speech. (similarity 0.81)
• Deactivating cochlear electrodes with indistinct pitch responses improves speech perception for most users (similarity 0.80)
• Cochlear implants give good speech recognition in quiet but poor performance in noise (similarity 0.80)
• Deactivating pitch-redundant electrodes may benefit some implant users but not others (similarity 0.80)
• Phonetic models predict EEG better, but only when speech is intelligible. (similarity 0.79)
• Phonemic and articulatory-feature speech representations can be encoded as multivariate EEG-regression predictors (similarity 0.79)
• Deactivating cochlear implant electrodes harms spectral ripple resolution but spares speech perception (similarity 0.79)
• Deactivating pitch-indiscriminable cochlear implant electrodes yields no speech benefit (similarity 0.78)
• Cochlear device users benefit less from electrode deactivation than AB and MEDEL users (similarity 0.78)
• Deactivating non-distinct cochlear implant electrodes fails to improve speech perception (similarity 0.78)
• Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Categorical phonetic features encode EEG information the speech envelope lacks #corroborates (0.82) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4429
• Phonemic and articulatory-feature speech representations can be encoded as multivariate EEG-regression predictors #expands (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4371
• Cochlear-implant users show no sensitivity to inherent noise envelope fluctuations #qualifies (0.75)
• Combining electric implant with residual acoustic hearing improves pitch perception #complicates (0.70)