Envelope following responses (EFRs) may be a useful tool for evaluating the audibility of speech sounds in infants. The present study aimed to evaluate the characteristics of speech-evoked EFRs in infants with normal hearing, relative to adults, and identify age-dependent changes in EFR characteristics during infancy. In 42 infants and 21 young adults, EFRs were elicited by the first (F1) and the second and higher formants (F2+) of the vowels /u/, /a/, and /i/, dominant in low and mid frequencies, respectively, and by amplitude-modulated fricatives /s/ and /∫/, dominant in high frequencies. In a subset of 20 infants, the in-ear stimulus level was adjusted to match that of an average adult ear (65 dB sound pressure level [SPL]). We found that (a) adult–infant differences in EFR amplitude, signal-to-noise ratio, and intertrial phase coherence were larger and spread across the frequency range when in-ear stimulus level was adjusted in infants, (b) adult–infant differences in EFR characteristics were the largest for low-frequency stimuli, (c) infants demonstrated adult-like phase coherence when they received a higher (i.e., unadjusted) stimulus level, and (d) EFR phase coherence and signal-to-noise ratio changed with age in the first year of life for a few F2+ vowel stimuli in a level-specific manner. Together, our findings reveal that development-related changes in EFRs during infancy likely vary by stimulus frequency, with low-frequency stimuli demonstrating the largest adult–infant differences. Consistent with previous research, our findings emphasize the significant role of stimulus level calibration methods while investigating developmental trends in EFRs.
Objectives: To assess the sensitivity of statistical indicators used for the objective detection of speech-evoked envelope following responses (EFRs) in infants and adults.Design: Twenty-three adults and 21 infants with normal hearing participated in this study. A modified/susa∫i/speech token was presented at 65 dB SPL monoaurally. Presentation level in infants was corrected using in-ear measurements. EFRs were recorded between high forehead and ipsilateral mastoid. Statistical post-processing was completed using F-test, Magnitude-Square Coherence, Rayleigh test, Rayleigh-Moore test, and Hotelling's T 2 test. Logistic regression models assessed the sensitivity of each statistical indicator in both infants and adults as a function of testing duration.
Results:The Rayleigh-Moore and Rayleigh tests were the most sensitive statistical indicators for speech-evoked EFR detection in infants. Comparatively, Magnitude-Square Coherence and Hotelling's T 2 also provide clinical benefit for infants in all conditions after ~30 minutes of testing, whereas the F-test failed to detect responses to EFRs elicited by vowels with accuracy greater than chance. In contrast, the F-test was the most sensitive for vowel-elicited response detection for adults in short tests (<10 minute) and performed comparatively with the Rayleigh-Moore and Rayleigh test during longer test durations. Decreased sensitivity was observed in infants relative to adults across all testing durations and statistical indicators, but the effects were largest in low frequency stimuli and seemed to be mostly, but not wholly, caused by differences in response amplitude.
Conclusions:The choice of statistical indicator significantly impacts the sensitivity of speech-evoked EFR detection. In both groups and for all stimuli, the Rayleigh test and Rayleigh-Moore tests have high sensitivity. Differences in EFR detection are present between infants and adults regardless of statistical indicator; however, these effects are largest for low-frequency EFR stimuli and for amplitude-based statistical indicators.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.