From Modulated Noise to Natural Speech: the Effect of Stimulus Parameters on the Frequency Following Response
Abstract
Frequency following responses (FFRs) can be evoked by a wide range of auditory stimuli, but for many stimulus parameters the effect on FFR strength is not fully understood. This complicates the comparison of earlier studies and the design of new studies. Furthermore, the most optimal stimulus parameters are unknown. To help resolve this issue, we investigated the effects of four important stimulus parameters and their interactions on the FFR. FFRs were measured in 16 normal hearing subjects evoked by stimuli with four levels of stimulus complexity (amplitude modulated noise, artificial vowels, natural vowels and nonsense words), three frequencies (around 105 Hz, 185 Hz and 245 Hz), three frequency contours (upward sweeping, downward sweeping and flat) and three vowels (Flemish /a:/, /u:/, and /i:/). We found that FFRs evoked by artificial vowels were on average 4 to 6 dB SNR larger than responses evoked by the other stimulus complexities, probably because of (unnaturally) strong higher harmonics. Moreover, response amplitude decreased with stimulus frequency but response SNR did not. Thirdly, frequency variation within the stimulus did not impact FFR strength, but only when rate of change remained low (e.g. not the case for sweeping natural vowels). Finally, the vowel /i:/ appeared to evoke larger response amplitudes compared to /a:/ and /u:/, but analysis power was too small to confirm this statistically. Differences in response strength between evoking vowels have been suggested to stem from destructive interference between response components. We show how a model of the auditory periphery can simulate these interference patterns and predict response strength. Altogether, the results of this study can guide stimulus choice for future FFR research and practical applications.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 10
- FWCI
- 1.07
- Field percentile
- top 27%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- The cortical contribution to the speech-FFR is not modulated by visual information
Jasmin Riegel, Alina Schüller, … Tobias Reichenbach·bioRxiv·Jan 27, 2026
- Auditory cortical generators of the Frequency Following Response are modulated by intermodal attention
Thomas Hartmann, Nathan Weisz·NeuroImagePeer-reviewed·Sep 11, 2019
- Deconstructing the Cortical Sources of Frequency Following Responses to Speech: A Cross-species Approach
G. Nike Gnanateja, Kyle Rupp, … Bharath Chandrasekaran·bioRxiv·May 17, 2021
- Attentional modulation of the cortical contribution to the frequency-following response evoked by continuous speech
Alina Schüller, Achim Schilling, … Tobias Reichenbach·Journal of NeurosciencePeer-reviewed·Oct 4, 2023
- Linear superposition of responses evoked by individual glottal pulses explain over 80% of the frequency following response to human speech in the macaque monkey
Tobias Teichert, G. Nike Gnanateja, … Bharath Chandrasekaran·bioRxiv·Sep 6, 2021
- Neural tracking of the fundamental frequency of the voice: the effect of voice characteristics
Jana Van Canneyt, Jan Wouters, Tom Francart·bioRxiv·Aug 26, 2020