Objectives: 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. Design: 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. Results: 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]. Conclusions: 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. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank Dr Timothy Wilding, Dr Emanuele Perugia, and Dr Frederic Marmel at the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre for their help in writing the MATLAB code for some of the data processing. The authors also thank the Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA for the provision of stimuli (consonant vowels and background babble) used in this study. G.B. designed and performed the experiment, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper; A.L. was involved in experiment design and interpretation of results; S.L.B. and G.P. were involved in data processing, MATLAB coding, and reviewed results; M.O. was involved in study setup and reviewed results; K.K. was involved in experiment design, data analyses, and interpretation of results. All authors discussed results and commented on the manuscript at all stages. This research was funded by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education and King Fahad Medical City (to G.B.) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant EP/M026728/1 (to K.K. and S.L.B.). Portions of this article were previously presented at the XXV International Evoked Response Audiometry Study Group Biennial Symposium, Warsaw, Poland, May 22, 2017; at the 40th MidWinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Baltimore, MD, USA, February 12, 2017; and at the Basic Auditory Science Meeting, Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 5, 2016. Raw EEG data (speech-ABRs) for this study may be accessed at (https://ift.tt/2MpP0wP). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Address for correspondence: Ghada BinKhamis, Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Room A3.08, Ellen Wilkinson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: ghada.binkhamis@manchester.ac.uk or Karolina Kluk, Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Room B2.15, Ellen Wilkinson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: Karolina.Kluk@manchester.ac.uk Received June 30, 2017; accepted June 25, 2018 Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2BpUhPU
via IFTTT
Κυριακή 19 Αυγούστου 2018
Speech Auditory Brainstem Responses: Effects of Background, Stimulus Duration, Consonant–Vowel, and Number of Epochs
Objectives: 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. Design: 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. Results: 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]. Conclusions: 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. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0 (CCBY-NC), where it is permissible to download, share, remix, transform, and buildup the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially without permission from the journal. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and text of this article on the journal’s Web site (www.ear-hearing.com). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank Dr Timothy Wilding, Dr Emanuele Perugia, and Dr Frederic Marmel at the Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre for their help in writing the MATLAB code for some of the data processing. The authors also thank the Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Communication Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA for the provision of stimuli (consonant vowels and background babble) used in this study. G.B. designed and performed the experiment, analyzed the data, and wrote the paper; A.L. was involved in experiment design and interpretation of results; S.L.B. and G.P. were involved in data processing, MATLAB coding, and reviewed results; M.O. was involved in study setup and reviewed results; K.K. was involved in experiment design, data analyses, and interpretation of results. All authors discussed results and commented on the manuscript at all stages. This research was funded by the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Education and King Fahad Medical City (to G.B.) and by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant EP/M026728/1 (to K.K. and S.L.B.). Portions of this article were previously presented at the XXV International Evoked Response Audiometry Study Group Biennial Symposium, Warsaw, Poland, May 22, 2017; at the 40th MidWinter Meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology, Baltimore, MD, USA, February 12, 2017; and at the Basic Auditory Science Meeting, Cambridge, United Kingdom, September 5, 2016. Raw EEG data (speech-ABRs) for this study may be accessed at (https://ift.tt/2MpP0wP). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Address for correspondence: Ghada BinKhamis, Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Room A3.08, Ellen Wilkinson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: ghada.binkhamis@manchester.ac.uk or Karolina Kluk, Manchester Centre for Audiology and Deafness, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Room B2.15, Ellen Wilkinson Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. E-mail: Karolina.Kluk@manchester.ac.uk Received June 30, 2017; accepted June 25, 2018 Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2BpUhPU
via IFTTT
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2BpUhPU
via IFTTT
Motion Analysis in the Axial Plane after Realignment Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Publication date: Available online 19 August 2018
Source: Gait & Posture
Author(s): Ashish Patel, Robert Pivec, Neil V. Shah, Dante M. Leven, Adam Margalit, Louis M. Day, Ellen M. Godwin, Virginie Lafage, Nicholas H. Post, Hiroyuki Yoshihara, Bassel G. Diebo, Carl B. Paulino
Abstract
Background
This study aimed to define changes occurring in axial plane motion after scoliosis surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) using gait analysis. Pre- and postoperative axial plane motion was compared to healthy/control subjects. This may potentially improve our understanding of how motion is impacted by deformity and subsequent surgical realignment.
Methods
15 subjects with AIS underwent pre- and postoperative radiographic and gait analysis, with focus on axial plane motion (clockwise [CW] and counterclockwise [CCW]). Age, weight, and gender-matched controls (n = 13) were identified for gait analysis. Control, preoperative and postoperative groups were compared with paired student’s t-tests.
Results
Surgical realignment resulted in significantly decreased in upper thoracic, thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar Cobb angles pre-to-postoperatively (36.7° vs. 15.2°, 60.1° vs. 25.6°, 47.7° vs. 17.7° and 27.2° vs. 4.8°, respectively) (all p < 0.05), with no significant change in thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, central sacral vertical line, pelvic incidence, and sagittal vertical axis. However, pelvic tilt significantly increased from 4.9° to 8.1° (p = 0.035). Using gait analysis: preoperative thoracic axial rotation differed (mean CW and CCW rotation was 1.9° and 3.1° [p = 0.01]), whereas mean CW & CCW pelvic rotation remained symmetric (2.0° and 3.0°; p = 0.44). Postoperatively, CCW thoracic rotation range of motion decreased (CW: 0.6° and CCW: 1.4°; p = 0.31). No significant difference in postoperative pelvic rotation occurred (1.1° and 3.4°; p = 0.10). Compared to controls, AIS patients demonstrated no significant difference in total CW & CCW thoracic motion relative to the pelvis both pre- (14.9° and 12.3°, respectively; p = 0.45) and postoperatively (12.9° and 12.3°, respectively; p = 0.82).
Significance
AIS patients demonstrated abnormal gait patterns in the axial plane compared to normal controls. After surgical realignment and de-rotation, marked improvement in axial plane motion was observed, highlighting how motion analysis can afford surgeons three-dimensional perspective into the patient’s functional status.
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2MDWsDS
via IFTTT
Motion Analysis in the Axial Plane after Realignment Surgery for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
Publication date: Available online 19 August 2018
Source: Gait & Posture
Author(s): Ashish Patel, Robert Pivec, Neil V. Shah, Dante M. Leven, Adam Margalit, Louis M. Day, Ellen M. Godwin, Virginie Lafage, Nicholas H. Post, Hiroyuki Yoshihara, Bassel G. Diebo, Carl B. Paulino
Abstract
Background
This study aimed to define changes occurring in axial plane motion after scoliosis surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) using gait analysis. Pre- and postoperative axial plane motion was compared to healthy/control subjects. This may potentially improve our understanding of how motion is impacted by deformity and subsequent surgical realignment.
Methods
15 subjects with AIS underwent pre- and postoperative radiographic and gait analysis, with focus on axial plane motion (clockwise [CW] and counterclockwise [CCW]). Age, weight, and gender-matched controls (n = 13) were identified for gait analysis. Control, preoperative and postoperative groups were compared with paired student’s t-tests.
Results
Surgical realignment resulted in significantly decreased in upper thoracic, thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbar Cobb angles pre-to-postoperatively (36.7° vs. 15.2°, 60.1° vs. 25.6°, 47.7° vs. 17.7° and 27.2° vs. 4.8°, respectively) (all p < 0.05), with no significant change in thoracic kyphosis, lumbar lordosis, central sacral vertical line, pelvic incidence, and sagittal vertical axis. However, pelvic tilt significantly increased from 4.9° to 8.1° (p = 0.035). Using gait analysis: preoperative thoracic axial rotation differed (mean CW and CCW rotation was 1.9° and 3.1° [p = 0.01]), whereas mean CW & CCW pelvic rotation remained symmetric (2.0° and 3.0°; p = 0.44). Postoperatively, CCW thoracic rotation range of motion decreased (CW: 0.6° and CCW: 1.4°; p = 0.31). No significant difference in postoperative pelvic rotation occurred (1.1° and 3.4°; p = 0.10). Compared to controls, AIS patients demonstrated no significant difference in total CW & CCW thoracic motion relative to the pelvis both pre- (14.9° and 12.3°, respectively; p = 0.45) and postoperatively (12.9° and 12.3°, respectively; p = 0.82).
Significance
AIS patients demonstrated abnormal gait patterns in the axial plane compared to normal controls. After surgical realignment and de-rotation, marked improvement in axial plane motion was observed, highlighting how motion analysis can afford surgeons three-dimensional perspective into the patient’s functional status.
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2MDWsDS
via IFTTT
Influence of Altered Auditory Feedback on Oral-Nasal Balance in Song.
| Related Articles |
Influence of Altered Auditory Feedback on Oral-Nasal Balance in Song.
J Voice. 2018 Aug 14;:
Authors: Santoni C, de Boer G, Thaut M, Bressmann T
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the role of auditory feedback in the regulation of oral-nasal balance in singing in trained singers and non-singers.
STUDY DESIGN: Experimental repeated measures study.
METHODS: Twenty non-singers (10M/10F) and 10 female professional singers sang a musical stimulus repeatedly while hearing themselves over headphones. Over the course of the experiment, the nasal level signal in the headphones was increased or decreased so that the participants heard themselves as more or less nasal. Nasalance scores in the different phases of the experiment were quantified using a Nasometer 6450.
RESULTS: A repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated a significant main effect for singing condition F(5, 135) = 3.70, P < 0.05, and multiple comparison tests demonstrated that the nasalance scores for final baseline and the maximum and minimum nasal feedback conditions were all significantly lower than the first baseline (all comparisons P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There were no differences between the singers and non-singers. All participants had lower nasalance scores in response to both increased and decreased nasal signal level feedback.
PMID: 30119951 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2MD8duu
via IFTTT
Influence of Altered Auditory Feedback on Oral-Nasal Balance in Song.
| Related Articles |
Influence of Altered Auditory Feedback on Oral-Nasal Balance in Song.
J Voice. 2018 Aug 14;:
Authors: Santoni C, de Boer G, Thaut M, Bressmann T
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the role of auditory feedback in the regulation of oral-nasal balance in singing in trained singers and non-singers.
STUDY DESIGN: Experimental repeated measures study.
METHODS: Twenty non-singers (10M/10F) and 10 female professional singers sang a musical stimulus repeatedly while hearing themselves over headphones. Over the course of the experiment, the nasal level signal in the headphones was increased or decreased so that the participants heard themselves as more or less nasal. Nasalance scores in the different phases of the experiment were quantified using a Nasometer 6450.
RESULTS: A repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated a significant main effect for singing condition F(5, 135) = 3.70, P < 0.05, and multiple comparison tests demonstrated that the nasalance scores for final baseline and the maximum and minimum nasal feedback conditions were all significantly lower than the first baseline (all comparisons P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: There were no differences between the singers and non-singers. All participants had lower nasalance scores in response to both increased and decreased nasal signal level feedback.
PMID: 30119951 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
from #Audiology via ola Kala on Inoreader https://ift.tt/2MD8duu
via IFTTT
Εγγραφή σε:
Αναρτήσεις (Atom)