1 / 28

By Ashley Groeber Advisor: Dr. Fuh-Cherng Jeng

Frequency-Following Responses of Voice Pitch: A Comparison of Familiar vs. Stranger’s Voices in Normal-Hearing Adults. By Ashley Groeber Advisor: Dr. Fuh-Cherng Jeng. Introduction. Voice identification.

isaura
Download Presentation

By Ashley Groeber Advisor: Dr. Fuh-Cherng Jeng

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Frequency-Following Responses of Voice Pitch: A Comparison of Familiar vs. Stranger’s Voices in Normal-Hearing Adults By Ashley Groeber Advisor: Dr. Fuh-Cherng Jeng

  2. Introduction

  3. Voice identification • Voice pitch is an important auditory perception in the individual’s ability to identify the different pitch contours • Speaker Identification • Phonagnosia • Right hemisphere lesions • van Lancker & Canter, 1982 • Right hemisphere processes intonational contours and emotional tones of speech

  4. Familiar vs. Unfamiliar Voices • Electrophysiological studies of the cortex show the identification of familiar vs. unfamiliar voices result in significantly more robust findings from the familiar voices when compared to unfamiliar voices. • Tanaka & Kudo, 2012 • Beauchemin et al., 2006 (Tanaka & Kudo, 2012)

  5. Frequency Following Responses • FFR • Longer latency (6 msec) • Inferior colliculus • Accurately preserve pitch information from steady-state and time-variant speech sounds and complex sounds. (Krishnan et al., 2004)

  6. Objectives • Examine the responses of the listener to their own voice and a stranger’s voice • Determine whether there is a stronger response to familiar voices or unfamiliar voices.

  7. Hypothesis • When presented with a sample of your own voice and a stranger’s voice, your own voice will elicit a stronger frequency-following response than that of a stranger’s voice.

  8. Methodology

  9. Subjects • 12 female native speakers of American English • mean age = 23.9 yr., SD = 2.54 • Normal hearing sensitivity • Thresholds ≤ 20 dB HL across all octave frequencies between 250 and 8000 Hz

  10. Auditory Stimuli • Voice sample of the vowel /i/ with a rising pitch • Four conditions • Participant’s own voice • Twostrangers’ voices • Control condition

  11. Stranger Voices

  12. Stimuli • Voice samples were recorded prior to testing • Participants were seated in a quiet room • Recorded with a Zoom H2n Handy Recorder • Participants were instructed to say the sentence “Are you happy?” with a drawn out /i/ sound. • Normalized • Duration normalized to 250 ms • Sampling rate: 40,000 samples/sec

  13. FFR Recording • FFRs were recorded using three surface recording electrodes to record the participant‘s ability to perceive differences in voice pitch between familiar and unfamiliar voices. • One Channel Montage • Non inverting: High forehead (Fpz) • Inverting: Mastoid of the test ear (M2) • Ground: Low forehead • Impedances • < 3000 Ohms • Balanced within 1500 Ohm.

  14. Procedure • Recordings were done in an acoustically and electrically treated sound booth • Participants were comfortably seated in a reclining chair and asked to relax throughout testing. • The stimuli were presented monaurally through a foam insert earphone (ER-2A) in the right ear at a 75 dB SPL.

  15. Data Analysis • Offline analysis was completed with the use of MatLab, SigmaPlot, and SPSS • Four Objective Measures: • Tracking Accuracy: The accurateness of pitch encoding in the brainstem • Slope Error: How well the brain follows the overall shape of the pitch contour • Frequency Error: The accuracy of pitch tracking • Pitch Strength: The robustness of the response • A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine significance between the experimental conditions. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

  16. Results

  17. Time waveforms & Spectrograms

  18. Group Comparisons

  19. Is Your Own Voice Familiar to You???

  20. Mother’s Voice • Previous research has mainly focused on the subject’s mother’s voice • Turnure, 1971 • Beauchemin, 2010 • These studies indicate a relationship between the mother’s familiar voice and speaker identification.

  21. Time waveforms & Spectrograms

  22. Group Comparisons

  23. Post Hoc analysis

  24. Conclusion & Discussion

  25. Conclusion • This study explored the brainstem responses to a familiar voice sample of the listener’s own voice or the listener’s mother’s voice and an unfamiliar voice sample of a stranger’s voice. • No significant differences were revealed in any of the measures, tracking accuracy, slope error, frequency error, or pitch strength, between FFRs of familiar voices and stranger voices.

  26. Future Research • Could the mother’s voice produce a stronger response than the listener’s own voice? • Male participants

  27. A Special Thank You to… • Dr. Jeng • Everyone the in the Auditory Evoked Potential lab • My professors and supervisors • My Classmates • Family/Friends

  28. References • Beauchemin, M., De Beaumont, L., Vannasing, P., Turcotte, A., Arcand, C., Belin, P., & Lassonde, M. (2006). Electrophysiological markers of voice familiarity. European Journal Of Neuroscience, 23(11), 3081-3086. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04856.x • Beauchemin, M., Gonzalez-Frankenberger, B., Tremblay, J., Vannasing, P., Martinez-Montes, E., Belin, P., Beland, R., Francoeur, D., Carceller, A., Wallois, F., & Lassonde, M. (2010). Mother and Stranger: An Electrophysiological Study of Voice Processing in Newborns. Cerebral Cortex, 21(8), 1705-1711. • Van Dommelen, W. A. (1990). ACOUSTIC PARAMETERS IN HUMAN SPEAKER RECOGNITION. Language & Speech, 33(3), 259-272. • Jeng, F., Costilow, C. E., Stangherlin, D. P., & Chia-Der, l. (2011). Relative Power of Harmonics in Human Frequency Following Responses Associated with Voice Pitch in American and Chinese Adults. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 113(1), 67-86. • Jeng, F., Hu, J., Dickman, B., Montgomery-Reagan, K., Tong, M., Wu, G., & Lin, C. (2011). Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Frequency-Following Responses to Voice Pitch in American and Chinese Neonates and Adults. Ear and Hearing, 32(6), 699-707. • Krishnan, A., Xu, Y., Gandour, J. T., & Cariani, P. A. (2004). Human frequency-following response: representation of pitch contours in Chinese tones. Hearing Research, 1891-12. doi:10.1016/S0378-5955(03)00402-7 • Marsh, J.T., Brown, W.S., Smith, J.C. (1974). Differential brainstem pathways for the conduction of auditory frequency following responses. Electroencephalogr. Clin.Neurophysiol. 38, 415-422. • Sohmer, H., Pratt, H., & Kinarti, R. (1977). Sources of frequency following responses (FFR) in man. Electroencephalography And Clinical Neurophysiology, 42(5), 656-664. • Tanaka, Y., & Kudo, Y. (2012). Effects of familiar voices on brain activity. International Journal Of Nursing Practice, 1838-44. • Turnure, C. (1971). Response to voice of mother and stranger by babies in the first year. Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 182-190. doi:10.1037/h0030431 • Van Lancker, D., & Canter, G. (1982). Impairment of voice and face recognition in patients with hemispheric damage. Brain And Cognition, 1(2), 185-195.

More Related