Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
FREQUENCY FOLLOWING RESPONSES IN ADULTS WHO CAN OR CANNOT SING IN TUNE
1
Electrophysiology, Centro de Eletrofisiologia e Neuroaudiologia Avançada, Brazil
2
Hearing, Centro de Estudos da Voz (CEV), Brazil
3
Hearing, Centro de Estudos da Voz (CEV), São Paulo, Brazil, Brazil
4
Estatistical, Instituto de pesquisa Eldorado, Brazil
5
Institute of Physiology and Pathology of Hearing, World Hearing Center, Poland
6
Voice, Centro de Estudos da Voz (CEV), Brazil
7
Voice, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
Submission date: 2020-06-05
Final revision date: 2020-07-09
Acceptance date: 2020-09-04
Publication date: 2020-11-16
Corresponding author
Milaine Dominici Sanfins
Electrophysiology, Centro de Eletrofisiologia e Neuroaudiologia Avançada, Avenida Jacutinga, 220- apto 12,, 04515-030, São Paulo, Brazil
Electrophysiology, Centro de Eletrofisiologia e Neuroaudiologia Avançada, Avenida Jacutinga, 220- apto 12,, 04515-030, São Paulo, Brazil
J Hear Sci 2020;10(3):58-67
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
It is believed that auditory processing occurs normally in people who can sing in tune and improperly in people who cannot. Auditory feedback seems to be a crucial factor in the way the voice is produced and monitored. Evaluation of auditory processing using the Frequency Following Response (FFR) allows fine-grained neural processing to be objectively identified and might be a way of differentiating between those who sing in-tune and those who sing off-tune.The aim of this study was to analyse the FFR responses of people who can sing in-tune and compare them to those who sing off-tune.
Material and methods:
FFR responses were recorded in 37 adults who were assigned to one of two groups: (i) a control group (CG) consisting of 17 adults who could sing in-tune (ii) an experimental group (EG) consisting of 20 adults who sang off-tune.
Results:
There were statistically significant differences in the electro-physiological responses of the EG compared to the CG for the latencies of waves A, C, D, and F in the right ear. In contrast, FFR amplitude measurements did not seem to be a suitable parameter for identifying changes in the coding of speech sounds.
Conclusions:
FFR responses in the EG showed a different pattern from the CG group, with a number of longer latencies in the EG. However, FFR amplitude did not differ significantly between the groups.
It is believed that auditory processing occurs normally in people who can sing in tune and improperly in people who cannot. Auditory feedback seems to be a crucial factor in the way the voice is produced and monitored. Evaluation of auditory processing using the Frequency Following Response (FFR) allows fine-grained neural processing to be objectively identified and might be a way of differentiating between those who sing in-tune and those who sing off-tune.The aim of this study was to analyse the FFR responses of people who can sing in-tune and compare them to those who sing off-tune.
Material and methods:
FFR responses were recorded in 37 adults who were assigned to one of two groups: (i) a control group (CG) consisting of 17 adults who could sing in-tune (ii) an experimental group (EG) consisting of 20 adults who sang off-tune.
Results:
There were statistically significant differences in the electro-physiological responses of the EG compared to the CG for the latencies of waves A, C, D, and F in the right ear. In contrast, FFR amplitude measurements did not seem to be a suitable parameter for identifying changes in the coding of speech sounds.
Conclusions:
FFR responses in the EG showed a different pattern from the CG group, with a number of longer latencies in the EG. However, FFR amplitude did not differ significantly between the groups.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Kimura D. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol, 1961;15(3):166-71.
2.
Asaridou SS, McQueen JM. Speech and music shape the listening brain: evidence for shared domain-general mechanisms. Front Psychol, 2013;4:321.
3.
Moreti F, Pereira LD, Gielow I. Pitch-matching scanning: comparison of musicians and non-musicians’ performance. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol, 2012;24(4):368-73.
4.
Mawhinney T. Tone-deafness and low musical abilities: an investigation of prevalence, characteristics and tractability. Kingston: Queen’s University; 1986.
5.
Heresniak M. The care and training of adult bluebirds: teaching the singing impaired. J Singing, 2004;61(1):9-25.
6.
Ishii C, Arashiro P, Pereira L. Ordering and temporal resolution in professional singers and in well tuned and out of tune amateur singers. Pro Fono, 2006;18(3):285-92.
7.
Strait D, Parbery-Clark A, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical training during early childhood enhances the neural encoding of speech in noise. Brain Lang, 2012;123(3):191-201.
8.
Musacchia G, Strait D, Kraus N. Relationships between behavior, brainstem and cortical encoding of seen and heard speech in musicians and non-musicians. Hear Res, 2008;241(1-2):34-42.
9.
Strait D, Parbery-Clark A, O’Connell S, Kraus N. Biological impact of preschool music classes on processing speech in noise. Develop Cog Neurosci, 2013;6:51-60.
10.
Nascimento F, Monteiro R, Soares C, Ferreira M. Temporal sequencing abilities in musicians violinists and non-musicians. Arq Int Otorrinolaringol, 2010;14(2):217-24.
11.
Strait DL, O’Connell S, Parbery-Clark A, Kraus N. Musicians’ enhanced neural differentiation of speech sounds arises early in life: developmental evidence from ages 3 to 30. Cereb Cortex, 2014;24(9):2512-21.
12.
Wible B, Nicol T, Kraus N. Atypical brainstem representation of onset and formant structure of speech sounds in children with language-based learning problems. Biolog Psychol, 2004;67(3):299-317.
13.
Kishon-Rabin L, Amir O, Vexler Y, Zaltz Y. Pitch discrimination: are professional musicians better than non-musicians? J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol, 2001;12(2):125-43.
14.
Kraus N, Skoe E, Parbery-Clark A, Ashley R. Experience-induced malleability in neural encoding of pitch, timbre, and timing: implications for language and music. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 2009;1169:543-57.
15.
Sanfins M, Borges L, Ubiali T, Colella-Santos M. Speech-evoked auditory brainstem response in the differential diagnosis of scholastic difficulties. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 2015.
16.
Sanfins M, Colella-Santos M. A review of the clinical applicability of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses. J Hear Sci, 2016;6 (1):9-16.
17.
Blumstein S, Stevens K. Acoustic invariance in speech production: evidence from measurements of the spectral characteristics of stop consonants. J Acoust Soc Am, 1979;66(4):1001-17.
19.
Bachorowski J-A, Owren M. Vocal expression of emotion: acoustic properties of speech are associated with emotional intensity and context. Psychol Sci, 1995;6(4):219-24.
20.
Hornickel J, Skoe E, Nicol T, Zecker S, Kraus N. Subcortical differentiation of stop consonants relates to reading and speech-innoise perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009;106(31):13022-7.
21.
Dhar S, Abel R, Hornickel J, Nicol T, Skoe E, Zhao W, et al. Exploring the relationship between physiological measures of cochlear and brainstem function. Clin Neurophysiol, 2009;120(5):959-66.
22.
Basu M, Krishnan A, Weber-Fox C. Brainstem correlates of temporal auditory processing in children with specific language impairment. Dev Sci, 2010;13(1):77-91.
23.
Rana B, Barman A. Correlation between speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses and transient evoked otoacoustic emissions. J Laryngol Otol, 2011;125(9):911-6.
25.
Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol, 1970; 92: 311-24.
26.
Jasper HH. The ten–twenty system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1958; 10: 371-75.
27.
Skoe E, Kraus N. Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds: a tutorial. Ear Hear, 2010; 31:320-24.
28.
Russo N, Nicol T, Musacchia G, Kraus N. Brainstem responses to speech syllables. Clin Neurophysiol, 2004;115:2021-30.
29.
Russo NM, Nicol TG, Zecker SG, Hayes EA, Kraus N. Auditory training improves neural timing in the human brainstem. Behav Brain Res, 2005;156(1):95-103.
30.
Keith R. Dichotic listening in children. In: Beasley D, editor. San Diego: College-Hill Press; 1984.
31.
Song JH, Nicol T, Kraus N. Test–retest reliability of the speechevoked auditory brainstem response. Clin Neurophysiol, 2011;122(2):346-55.
32.
Johnson KL, Nicol TG, Kraus N. Brain stem response to speech: a biological marker of auditory processing. Ear Hear, 2005;26(5):424-34.
33.
Sinha SK, Basavaraj V. Speech evoked auditory brainstem responses: a new tool to study brainstem encoding of speech sounds. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surgery, 2010;62(4):395-9.
34.
Sanfins MD, Borges LR, Ubiali T, Donadon C, Hein TAD, Hatzopoulos S, et al. Speech-evoked brainstem response in normal adolescent and children speakers of Brazilian Portuguese. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol, 2016:12-9.
35.
Wong P, Skoe E, Russo N, Dees T, Kraus N. Musical experience shapes human brainstem encoding of linguistic pitch patterns. Nat Neurosci, 2007;10 (4):420-2.
36.
Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. The scalp-recorded brainstem response to speech: neural origins and plasticity. Psychophysiol, 2010;47(2):236-46.
37.
Gabr TA, Darwish ME. Speech auditory brainstem response audiometry in children with specific language impairment. Hear Bal Commun, 2016;14(1):50-7.
38.
King C, Warrier C, Hayes E, N K. Deficits in auditory brainstem pathway encoding of speech sounds in children with learning problems. Neurosci Lett, 2002;319:111–5.
39.
Shennawy A, Khosht M, Ghannoum H, Meguid N. Electrophysiologic assessment of auditory function in children with autism and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder. J Hear Sci, 2014;4(3):26-34.
40.
Krishnan A. Human frequency-following responses: representation of steadystate synthetic vowels. Hear Res, 2002;166:192-201.
41.
Galbraith G. Two-channel brainstem frequency-following responses to pure tone and missing fundamental stimuli. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1994;92:321-30.
42.
White-Schwoch T, Davies EC, Thompson EC, Woodruff Carr K, Nicol T, Bradlow AR, et al. Auditory-neurophysiological responses to speech during early childhood: effects of background noise. Hear Res, 2015;328:34-47.
43.
Krishnan A, Gandour J, Ananthakrishnan S, Bidelman G, CJ S. Functional ear (a)symmetry in brainstem neural activity relevant to encoding of voice pitch: a precursor for hemispheric specialization? Brain Lang, 2011;119:226-31.
44.
Gockel H, Carlyon R, Mehta A, Plack C. The frequency following response (FFR) may reflect pitch-bearing information but is not a direct representation of pitch. JARO, 2011;12:767-82.
45.
Schneider P, Scherg M, Dosch H, Specht H, Gutschalk A, Rupp A. Morphology of Heschl’s gyrus reflects enhanced activation in the auditory cortex of musicians. Nat Neurosci, 2002;5:688–94.
46.
James CE, Oechslin MS, Van De Ville D, Hauert CA, Descloux C, Lazeyras F. Musical training intensity yields opposite effects on grey matter density in cognitive versus sensorimotor networks. Brain Struct Funct, 2014;219(1):353-66.
47.
Kraus N, Chandrasekaran B. Music training for the development of auditory skills. Nature Rev Neurosci, 2010;11:599-605.
48.
Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Kraus N. Musical experience limits the degradative effects of background noise on the neural processing of sound. J Neurosci, 2009;29(45):14100-7.
49.
Strait D, Kraus N, Parbery-Clark A. Musical experience shapes top-down mechanisms: evidence from masking and auditory attention performance. Hear Res, 2010;261:22-9.
50.
Wolfe J, Garnier M, Smith J. Vocal tract resonances in speech, singing, and playing musical instruments. HFSP Journal, 2008;3(1):6-23.
51.
Hornickel J, Knowles E, Kraus N. Test–retest consistency of speech-evoked auditory brainstem responses in typically-developing children. Hear Res, 2012;284(1-2):52-8.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
